Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday next.

MERSEYSIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

OECD Policy Committee

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's participation in the OECD Policy Committee meeting on 24th and 25th June.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): United Kingdom officials attended the meeting of the Economic Policy Committee of the OECD in Paris on 24th and 25th June. The main items discussed were the problems of inflation in all OECD countries and the balance of payments imbalances resulting from the increases in the price of oil, together with the appropriate policies for dealing with them.

Mr. Lamont: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm the report in The Times that the United Kingdom was

almost the only country among those present to press for a degree of reflation in the international economy? Does he agree that when Germany is deflating, France is deflating, when even the Italians have managed to agree on a deflationary package, and when the Americans are raising interest rates, given our inflationary situation and our balance of payments, we should be the last rather than the first to opt out of the burden that is to be borne in slowing down inflation?

Mr. Healey: As hon. Members will know, Her Majesty's Government are never responsible for that type of report in The Times. In fact, it is an inaccurate report. The view taken by all members of OECD has always been that it would be a great mistake for all countries to try at the same time to close their balance of payments deficits that have resulted from the oil price increase. We know that this year there is certain to be a surplus of approximately $70 billion of currency payments made to the OPEC countries, which they will be incapable of absorbing in terms of imports.

Mr. Horam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is strong support for the mistaken report in The Times about my right hon. Friend's views on reflation, and that those who support that point of view are hoping that he will translate words into action and come across with a spot of reflation.

Mr. Healey: I must tell my hon. Friend that I receive a great deal of advice from many sources. I fear that all of it is conflicting. I shall take all of it into account before I finally come to a decision.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer answer the question which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont)? The fact is that the Americans and the Germans have a large payments surplus. Therefore, any reflation must come from them first. If we were to lead the way in reflation that would be, in the words of Sir Alexander Cairncross in The Times of Tuesday, to court disaster.

Mr. Healey: I have the impression that the hon. Gentleman himself has answered the question.

Regional Employment Premium

Mr. Radice: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now increase the regional employment premium.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Industry gave him on 1st July in response to a similar Question.—[Vol. 876, c. 9.]

Mr. Radice: Does my hon. Friend agree that the case for increasing the regional employment premium now has the support not only of the development areas but of both sides of industry, including the TUC? Does he accept that the main strength of the argument for increasing the REP now is that it would help to stave off unemployment without at the same time adding to the already considerable inflationary pressures?

Mr. Barnett: I am very much aware of the points that my hon. Friend has made. My right hon. Friend will bear these matters in mind in the review of the future of REP which he announced in the Budget.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the Minister realise that to improve the regional employment premium would not stave off unemployment but merely shift it to the intermediate areas, which are already suffering distortion as a result of the present rate? Will the Minister not raise the premium but kindly phase it out?

Mr. Barnett: The answer to that is, "No" ". I do not agree with the hon. Lady's views.

Mr. Bagier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real value of the regional employment premium, compared with when it was first introduced, has now decreased considerably? The problem of high unemployment in the development areas must be taken into consideration. Will the Minister seriously press his right hon. Friend to increase the premium?

Mr. Barnett: Yes. I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's point. As I said earlier, we are bearing all these points in mind.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the Minister aware that it is no good giving people

encouragement to go to development areas unless he can curb the tongues of his hon. Friends who turn the position round to make it appear that those who respond patriotically are putting out the begging bowl, and that the premiums are being used for their own selfish purposes?

Mr. Barnett: I do not think that it is my hon. Friends who are doing any harm. I would have thought that it was the other way round.

Building Societies (Borrowing)

Mr. Dixon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been borrowed from the present Government by the building societies at 10½ per cent. interest; what information he has had from the societies about how much of this has been re-lent to the money market for periods of three months or more and six months or more; and what have been the average rates of interest received.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dr. John Gilbert): The Building Societies Association accepted the offer of £100 million from the Bank of England in April and further tranches of £100 million from public funds in May and June. The whole of the loans for April and May have been issued and the indications are that the whole of the third tranche will also be taken up. The building societies are not required to consult the Government about their investment policies, but their liquidity ratios, which fell in the early part of this year, are now generally back to the levels obtaining at the end of 1973.

Mr. Dixon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I do not think that he has answered the second part of my Question? Is he aware that there is every indication that the building societies have been re-lending the taxpayer's money in the money markets, and that that money is being used for purposes for which, presumably, his Government did not wish it to be used? Does he agree that that is a highly inflationary policy?

Dr. Gilbert: Building societies are non-profit-making institutions. Any return they receive on temporary investments of this sort—and they must have a liquidity ratio—will ultimately be available for further mortgage lending.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is it not rather odd that one can borrow money from a building society and lend the same money back to the same building society at a higher rate of interest? Would it not help if building societies were encouraged to recover outstanding loans to borrowers, which, after a period of 10 years or so, because of inflation, could be repaid by those borrowers?

Dr. Gilbert: Certainly, many odd things happen in the short-term money markets. There are often reverse yield gaps occurring. I do not think that it would be for me to interfere with the building societies' policies on recovering the loans they have extended to mortgagors.

Mr. William Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the difficulties with the building societies is that they borrow short and lend long? Consequently, is it not high time our tax laws were altered so that there would be an encouragement for pension funds to lend money to building societies? Does the Financial Secretary not agree that pension funds are the only long-term investors, as such, in this country, and that it is ludicrous that this money is available but, because of our tax laws and the tax exemption of pension funds, the repayment of building society tax is not allowed?

Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman raised this point at rather greater length in Committee on the Finance Bill, and I undertook to examine it. I have done so, and shall give the hon. Gentleman a detailed answer on Report, but at present I am not inclined to go any further than I did in Committee.

Tax Allowances (Widows)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the results of his meeting with a deputation from the National Association of Widows relating to tax allowances for widows; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Gilbert: On 26th June I met a deputation from the National Association of Widows who were introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). We had a detailed and comprehensive discussion of a number of taxation questions affecting

widows. I undertook to write to my hon. Friend in more detail about some of these issues and this I have now done.

Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that our taxation system is still unfair to large numbers of widows, particularly working widows, and that it does not take into account the extra expenses, such as the upkeep of homes, and so on, that many widows have?

Dr. Gilbert: I am well aware that widows have serious economic burdens to carry. Those burdens are common not only to widows but to many single people running homes on their own. It is because of this that the single person's allowance is well over half that of the married person's allowance.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will the hon. Gentleman stop being so complacent about this matter? Does he not realise that the widow is worse off today than she was in June 1973, because of the present taxation system? If he wishes, I can send him details to show that.

Dr. Gilbert: That was certainly not the burden of the representations made to me by the National Association of Widows, which is very grateful for the considerable increase in pensions that this Government are giving to widows.

Inflation

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether inflation in the British economy in the last three months has exceeded his expectations at the time of making his Budget Statement; and whether he plans any further steps in this connection.

Mr. Healey: I recognised in my Budget Statement that it was inevitable that the rate of increase of the retail price index would continue to be substantial for a time. But we are taking vigorous measures to keep the rate of inflation to a minimum.

Mr. Renton: In his Budget Statement the Chancellor also said that we must restore the people's confidence in money. Does he not agree that, apart from the world fall in commodity prices—for which he can hardly take credit—nothing his Government have done since Budget Day has gone any way towards achieving that honourable end? Will he confirm that


when he introduces his mini-Budget later this month he will not bring in inflationary measures for electioneering purposes—measures that could have the effect of turning the present disastrous rate of inflation into maxi-inflation that will finally destroy the confidence of every saver-investor in this country?

Mr. Healey: I cannot agree with all the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Shortly after entering office we found that the rate of inflation we had inherited was 13 per cent. and that the increase in oil and commodity prices was bound to feed through for another nine months and increase that rate substantially. Therefore, we froze rents, subsidised food, tightened price control, put an effective control on the money supply, and took care not to inflate demand, as the previous Government had done, to a point beyond the capacity of our economy to meet it. If the hon. Gentleman shares the views that some of his hon. Friend expressed earlier, as he appears to do, he should applaud what we have done rather than seek to attack it.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has had little appreciation from the Opposition? When she seeks to control prices she is condemned by them, and then they try to make capital out of rising prices.

Mr. Healey: I have no difficulty in agreeing with everything my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Higgins: Are not wage increases of 20 per cent. or more likely both to exacerbate inflation and endanger employment? Will the Chancellor say clearly whether or not they are consistent with the social compact?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the major inflationary element in wage increases at present is the threshold agreements which were part of the pevious Government's policies.

Mr. Higgins: Rubbish.

Mr. Healey: That is a point which has been put to me repeatedly by the Confederation of British Industry, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is rubbish he should say that to the Confederation.

Economic Situation

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what immediate plans he has for adjusting the economy.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now take urgent steps to reflate the economy.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he now considers the time appropriate to stimulate the economy, and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for reheating the economy.

Mr. Healey: I am now looking carefully at the latest indicators of demand and output to see what action, if any, might be necessary. If I decide to introduce new measures in advance of my autumn Budget I shall announce them in the normal way.

Mr. Skinner: When he gets down to his job in the course of the next few days, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, with the slightly reducing interest rates both here and in Western Europe generally, and with falling commodity prices, he should continue a policy of redistribution of income, should be prepared to spend more money on hospitals, housing and education, and should take steps to reduce value added tax with a view to abolishing it altogether, as a prelude to our coming out of the Common Market? Will he bear in mind that that will assist the social compact?

Mr. Healey: I note the mini-Budget representations of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the statement, at the time, that his Budget was neutral has not proved to be the case, and that it was in fact deflationary? If this is so, what steps will he take to try to avert a rise in unemployment this winter?

Mr. Healey: I made it clear in my Budget Statement that the Budget judgment on which I acted and the measures I took were liable to be slightly deflationary. I made clear at the time that there was to be a £200 million


reduction in overall demand. I am now considering whether that would appear to be excessive. I note the wide variety of views on the benches opposite. I would have been more impressed by the pleas of some Members opposite that I should adopt a deflationary stance if they had not repeatedly passed amendments to the Finance Bill upstairs which will lead to increases in the Government's borrowing requirement.

Mr. Alison: Since the rate of increase in money supply and the rate of inflation must both be relevant to the Chancellor's considerations, is he proposing to allow the rate of increase in the supply of money to keep up with the rate of increase of price inflation?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware that for the first time in many years we have the rate of increase in the money supply under control. I propose to keep it so. It is running at roughly half the rate at which it was running under the previous Government.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his predecessor, in his December cuts, inflicted cuts on many spending Departments—including the Department of Health and Social Security—which have had an absolutely disastrous affect on local authority services and hospital services'? Will he do everything he can to see that those cuts are restored at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Healey: I shall see what I can do to restore the cuts at the earliest appropriate opportunity, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the previous Government found it necessary to impose these massive and Draconian cuts because the whole of their economic policy had fallen into ruins. It takes some time to reconstruct a healthy economy, particularly against a background in which, for two months, production was subject to three-day working.

Mr. Hordern: Will the right hon. Gentleman reject the advice he is getting about taking reflationary measures, as these can only add to the burden of inflation which is increasing so quickly at present? Does he accept that our rate of inflation is higher than the rates of inflation of almost all major countries in the world, and that our balance of pay

ments position is almost the worst? Does he not accept the danger to sterling which would occur if we were to have a reflationary Budget?

Mr. Healey: I note that my French colleague, speaking to his Assembly last Friday, said that the French rate of inflation was higher than that of any of France's neighbours. Until last year our rate of inflation was very much higher than that of any other country, but now there are many other countries with rates of inflation comparable with Britain's.
I note the hon. Gentleman's views, but I should feel a little happier in facing the judgment that I have to make in the next week or so if his right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench would say whether they want me to take reflationary or deflationary measures. There has been a deafening silence from the purported leaders of the Opposition.

Mr. James Johnson: Will my hon. Friend constantly bear in mind the acute financial difficulties which are now facing, and will continue to face in increasing measure, our colleagues in local government, following reorganisation? Is he aware, for instance, that colleagues in the Yorkshire-Humberside area tell us that they will have to think in terms of fewer jobs and increased fares in the local transport system? There are many examples of similar situations. Will my right hon. Friend look at this situation and do something about it?

Mr. Healey: I am deeply concerned at the present situation of many local authorities, including that of the great Yorkshire city which I represent, but on top of the economic situation which the previous Government described as the gravest since the war, Britain, like all oil-consuming countries, has been shuddering under the effects of the biggest increase in oil prices in recorded history. It is bound to take time before we can see our way clearly through this so as to be able to do everything we would wish to do for everyone in the country who deserves it.

Mr. David Howell: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, as a matter of fact, putting aside the histrionics, how much public expenditure has increased net since his increases in the Budget, as this would help the House to form a judgment on his problems?

Mr. Healey: I cannot answer that without notice—but the hon. Gentleman made a mistake. I was talking history, not histrionics.

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the out-turns of his March 1974 Budget predictions.

Mr. Healey: Preliminary estimates of the out-turn in the first half will not be available until mid-August. However, it is now clear that the three-day working week had a less depressing effect on output and demand than had been feared earlier, so that when the out-turn for the first half is known it will probably show a smaller drop in gross domestic product than was estimated in the Budget.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend weigh that information against the strategy which he announced last March which was to design a Budget capable of improving our balance of payments situation? Faced with the present situation he can now regulate the economy in his mini-Budget to plus or minus 2 per cent. in VAT terms and plus or minus 10 per cent. in Customs and Excise duties; therefore he can only have a minimal influence on the balance of payments in future. Will he therefore join those of his hon. Friends who are now asking him and the rest of the Government to introduce selective import control so that we can make a direct contribution towards a better balance of payments in the future?

Mr. Healey: One of the most encouraging things since the last Budget is that the growth both in volume and value of exports has been greater than I then expected. It would be a disaster to take any steps which might lead to other countries restricting growth in our exports, since it is on export-led growth that we base our chances of breaking out of the stagnation from which our economy has suffered since the war.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not apparent that the Budget predictions are of somewhat limited value now, in view of the endless flood of additional public expenditure which is churned out week after week? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least get one thing clear for us? He said earlier that it was desirable that all countries should not try to close the gap in their balance of payments at once.

Will he confirm that the countries with the biggest balance of payment gaps, such as ourselves, should give the lead in starting the process?

Mr. Healey: My view, like that of my colleagues in OECD and in the Community Committee of Finance Ministers, is that consumer countries should not seek to meet the exceptional problems created for their balance of payments by reducing demand overall. It is highly desirable that Germany and the United States, which have big balance of payments surpluses, should lead the way in maintaining effective demand in the world economy. I find it somewhat baffling that the hon. Member should talk of the Government increasing public expenditure when, a few days ago, he and his hon. Friends voted for a reduction of £100 million in the yield from value added tax.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no about-turn on the promise he made to me in the Budget debate that the loop-holes in the tax arrangements for the oil companies, so badly messed up by the last Government, will be filled in before the Government go to the country? If the right hon. Gentleman intends to keep this promise, may I ask him when he will do so?

Mr. Healey: I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Lady that if she has the patience to sit here for another three quarters of an hour her anxieties will be met by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Wealth Tax (Works of Art)

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effects of wealth tax on the sale of works of art currently in Great Britain.

Mr. Joel Barnett: This will be a matter for later discussion in the light of the Green Paper.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful that my hon. Friend is thinking seriously about this. Is he aware that many people find the prices now being paid for works of art to be offensively high, as the wealthy in our society, instead of using their money for investments which would bring general public good, are using it more as a hedge against inflation? Is he aware


that there is equally widespread feeling that it would be a grand thing, via a wealth tax, for the public at large to have the benefit of taking the cream off the preposterous prices now paid for works of art?

Mr. Barnett: I note what my hon. Friend says. His remarks will be amongst those matters for discussion when the Green Paper is issued.

Mr. Money: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has received representations expressing the strongest possible misgivings on this subject from the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries and from the National Art Collections Fund? Is he aware that a tax control such as the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has suggested would open the floodgates to potential foreign buyers of our national heritage? Will he bear in mind that valuations of works of art for such a tax would be not only unfair but impossible?

Mr. Barnett: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman or anyone else can say that, when they have not seen the Green Paper. The hon. Gentleman and others may see the matter differently after they have seen the Green Paper.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in past generations this country and France have done enormously well out of their free world market in art, and that any attempt to clog the market now would be highly protectionist and selfish towards the rest of the world.

Mr. Barnett: It is becoming clear that when the Green Paper is issued the discussion will be very interesting.

TUC and CBI (Meetings)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to have further meetings with the TUC and CBI to discuss economic matters relating to combating inflation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Healey: I regularly meet the TUC and CBI, in NEDC and elsewhere, to discuss all aspects of economic policy, including the problems of inflation. I am in contact with both at the moment, and am in fact looking forward to a meeting with the CBI this afternoon.

Mr. Molloy: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he does not agree that, as inflation is the foe and increased productivity the means of combating it, he should be prepared to talk with the TUC and the CBI about the possibility of amending tax regulations as they apply to industrial overtime?

Mr. Healey: I do not know that I would gain very greatly by working out specific proposals on this with the TUC and the CBI. It is a matter constantly put to me by my hon. Friends and by my constituents. It is never far from the forefront of my mind.

Mr. Winterton: Does the Chancellor agree that one of the main problems facing industry today is that of liquidity, which has been made considerably worse as a result of his March Budget? Does he not further agree that from last December to the present date there has been a dramatic reduction in industrial investment intentions?

Mr. Healey: The liquidity of British industry as a whole stood at £10,000 million gross at the end of the year. I am glad to say that it showed no signs of falling, gross, over the first quarter. I am well aware that some firms do have liquidity problems. I have instructed the banks to take account of their needs if they should be approached for particular help. I am glad to say that so far the banks have had no excessive requests for help of this nature.

Mr. Robert Carr: Does the Chancellor stand by the recent speech he made in Durham to the effect that excessive pay increases were the greatest danger to inflation over the coming year? If so, will he make it clear in his forthcoming talks with the TUC and the CBI that the higher pay increases are the more dangerous it would be to reflate?

Mr. Healey: It would have been helpful if the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had borne this in mind when they constructed phase 3 of the counter-inflation policy. Conservative Members will know, perhaps better than my hon. Friends, how many companies are now facing intense problems in their liquidity flow because of the automatic application of threshold agreements. I do stand by what I said. The General Council of the


TUC has taken the same view and made clear in its advice to its constituent members that it believes that, by and large, wage increases over the coming year should be limited to what is required to cover the increase in the cost of living. The whole country would feel that it would be gracious of the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Secretary of State for Employment, if he were to express his satisfaction at the terms and form of the guidance given.

Capital Investment

Mr. Rost: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make proposals designed to increase investors' confidence in the capital markets.

Dr. Gilbert: The Government's economic policies have always been directed towards providing a stable fiscal and monetary framework within which confidence can be strengthened, including confidence as it affects investors in the capital markets.

Mr. Rost: If the Chancellor wants to stop the slump in savings and investment and restore confidence in industry should he not persuade the Prime Minister to sack the Secretary of State for Industry and then introduce a Budget which will reverse the penal anti-business measures in his last Budget?

Dr. Gilbert: It would probably be as well if the hon. Gentleman addressed his remarks personally to the Prime Minister. We are perfectly confident that our policies will have the success we always intended.

Mr. John Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many thousands of people who do not want to become investors or capitalists so that they may exist on the fruits of other people's labours, but who simply want the value of the money they earn to be protected? Will he consider a system of saving whereby interest rates may be minimal but the saver has money repaid at the value it was when it was invested? He would find that there were many honest people who would like to invest in this way.

Dr. Gilbert: I thank my hon. Friend for his extremely constructive suggestion. I am sure that he will be aware that there are considerable problems in trying to index any medium of savings. I was

glad to note the approval which greeted my hon. Friend's suggestion for protecting the value of money and to observe that it ranks high in the priorities of the Conservative Party—particularly bearing in mind its record in the past four years.

Local Authorities (Overdrafts)

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent local authorities requiring funds beyond their overdraft facilities will be adversely affected by the Bank of England's instructions to clearing banks operative from 1st July limiting overdrafts to specific amounts.

Mr. Joel Barnett: The new overdraft arrangements were proposed by the clearing banks in response to a general request from the Bank of England, endorsed by the previous administration, for steps to be taken to reduce excessive fluctuations in the demands for bank credit. The local authorities are currently estimating the effect upon them of these arrangements but it is likely to be relatively small.

Mr. Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be some effect and that to this will be added the high labour costs which local authorities are having to meet this year, the continuing high level—almost unprecedented—of interest rates, and the reluctance of ratepayers to meet their rate bills this year? Is he aware that I was interested in what the Chancellor had to say about his deep concern for the financial situation of local authorities? Will he tell us what proposals there are to speed up the payment of the rate support grant, and whether there are any other special measures in hand to assist local authorities in the especially difficult circumstances of this year?

Mr. Barnett: We are considering the resolution passed by this House dealing with the rate support grant, as the hon. Member would expect in the light of what happened. The additional costs would not be more than £1 million or £2 million, compared with the total local authority expenditure of around £9,000 million.

Mr. Cant: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the dire distress of many county treasurers? Is he aware that the Staffordshire County Council, whose finance meeting I attended on Monday


morning, has already spent the whole of its £6 million contingency fund as a result of factors outside its own jurisdiction, many of which are associated with inflation and budgetary measures? Does my hon. Friend realise that county treasurers are being forced into the money market and are having to pay 15 per cent. for yearling bonds? Will he give them some immediate help before he introduces the customary Rate Support Grant Increase Order in December?

Mr. Barnett: I am afraid that I cannot promise to do that. We are aware of the serious problems of local authorities, but they have to be considered in the context of the whole economic situation, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is studying at present.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Blaker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies are being made by Her Majesty's Government of the implications of introducing multiple rates of value added tax.

Dr. Gilbert: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy).—[Vol. 874, c. 561–2.]

Mr. Blaker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the introduction of further rates of VAT would have serious disadvantages? If his right hon. Friend is considering such a move, will the hon. Gentleman resist any suggestion of discrimination against the tourist industry? Is he aware that such a move has been adopted in other countries but has had to be abandoned because of the severe adverse effects?

Dr. Gilbert: I shall take note of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I am well aware of his interest in these matters.

Mr. Cryer: Is my hon. Friend aware that millions of people are fed up to the teeth with VAT? They see it as a device for getting us into the Common Market and keeping us there. Will my hon. Friend promise that when we get out of the Common Market we shall get rid of VAT and replace it by purchase tax?

Dr. Gilbert: My hon. Friend will recall that the Conservative Party made clear

that it was introducing VAT whether or not we went into the Common Market. I take my hon. Friend's point that the great advantage of purchase tax over VAT is that it makes it easier to discriminate against luxury goods.

Mr. Biffen: Cannot we rely upon the good-natured xenophobia of the Treasury Bench to prevent us from adopting this most unwholesome characteristic of Common Market nations' tax systems—multiple rates of VAT? Surely, one's experience suggests that the single rate plus the zero rate is far preferable to multiple rates?

Dr. Gilbert: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there should be a zero rate. That in itself introduces two rates into the VAT system. I cannot accept the general philosophy behind the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, because the Government think that it is a proper function of the tax system to discriminate between socially desirable and socially less desirable goods and activities.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his renegotiation with the EEC, for what items he intends to insist on zero rating in the event of harmonisation of the rate of VAT.

Mr. Moate: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy with regard to zero rating and harmonisation of value added tax in relation to the EEC renegotiations.

Dr. Gilbert: The EEC Commission has made no proposals for harmonising the rates of VAT. Its proposals in the draft Sixth Directive on VAT would, if unanimously adopted by the Council of Ministers in their present form, provide for the retention of all zero ratings in force in this country on 1st July 1973, unless and until the Council should in the future unanimously decide to restrict zero ratings or to abolish fiscal frontiers. We shall not accept any harmonisation of VAT which would restrict our discretion to refrain from taxing necessities.

Mr. Cook: I thank my hon. Friend for that full reply. Will he assure the House that, irrespective of the date of 1st July 1973, he will not agree to terms for our continued membership of the


Common Market which will mean the removal of zero rating on aids for the disabled and protective clothing, which were exempted in the recent Budget? Will my hon. Friend confirm that continued membership of the Common Market, irrespective of the renegotiated terms, will mean the continued imposition of VAT, with all its inflexibility and its tendency to produce inflation which was so deplored by his right hon. Friend in his Budget Statement?

Dr. Gilbert: My right hon. Friend has no intention whatever of removing the zero rating on aids for the disabled which he so recently introduced.

Mr. Moate: I note that the Government are insisting upon the right to retain zero rating, but does that imply that the Government accept the principle of harmonisation in respect of the scope of VAT, apart from zero rating?

Dr. Gilbert: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that both my right hon. Friend and his predecessor the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) have extended zero rating since the Sixth Directive of 1st July 1973.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT POLICY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether the broadcast on the economy on ITN on 24th June by the Chancellor of the Exchequer represents Government policy.

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Prime Minister whether the broadcast by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Independent Television News on 24th June about the state of the economy represents the Government's policy.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: asked the Prime Minister if the broadcast of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Independent Television News on 24th June on the state of the economy represents Government policy.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if the interview given on ITN on 24th June by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the state of the economy represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lamont: In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's admission, in that broadcast, of the damage to confidence which is being caused by the Government's proposals on nationalisation, would not further damage be caused if the Government delayed publication of the White Paper? Cannot the Prime Minister see that the more the details of these proposals are fudged and the more the publication of the details is delayed the greater will be the damage to confidence? Should not Parliament have the same right as was recently given to the Executive of the General and Municipal Workers Union, and should not Parliament discuss and debate the proposals before the recess?

The Prime Minister: As that string of questions emerged from an inaccurate account of what my right hon. Friend said, and as he said nothing of the kind, I do not think that the questions fall to be answered.

Mr. Gardiner: As it appeared from the broadcast that the Chancellor said that he would like a mandate to get on with the job, does the Prime Minister concede that he does not have this mandate at present?

The Prime Minister: We have a mandate, but it has been frustrated in a series of occasional votes by a party which never dared to vote until it knew that it could not have a June election.

Mr. Lawson: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has publicly admitted that he grossly over-estimated the effect of the three-day working week, and as the Treasury has revealed that the drop in production during that period was a mere 3½ per cent., will the Prime Minister bring those facts to the attention of his ill-informed colleagues so that he may emancipate them from the ignorant slogans of the last General Election?

The Prime Minister: The result of the last General Election was to end a damaging confrontation which, day by day, was getting more serious. I note the enthusiasm with which the hon. Gentleman is trying to make a case for fighting the next General Election on a return to the three-day working week.

Mr. Roberts: In that broadcast the Chancellor referred to the need for a proper return on capital as an incentive to investment. Does the Prime Minister confirm that the return on capital in private industry is about three times as great as it is in nationalised industries? Will he also confirm that although we hear a great deal about the £2 million a day subsidy to private industry, the taxes paid by private industry amount to £10 million a day? Finally, will he confirm that the threat of nationalisation is the biggest disincentive to investment?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend, at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council last week—which I chaired—went fully into the matter of the return on capital. He has asked the CBI—representatives of which are coming to see him today—to make any further representations it wishes on this matter in addition to what was said in NEDC. This same problem occurs with publicly-owned industries in almost every country in the world. They are industries which are mainly labour-intensive, industries which are services, and industries which for many years, under successive Governments, have had their pricing policies restricted in what both Governments believed to be the national interest.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that last December the then Conservative Chancellor made certain serious pronouncements which turned out to be totally wrong. He said that subsidies would cost £500 million, but we had to find £1,400 million in subsidies for these industries. The Chancellor at the time of the election knew that these subsidies would be needed but he did not tell the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Prime Minister whether he will list committees of the Cabinet of which he has taken the chair since 18th June 1974.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Latham: I am grateful for that reply in the light of the information the right hon. Gentleman gave to the House

on 18th June. In view of recent opinion polls, will he say whether he expects to take the chair at routine Cabinet committee meetings between 20th September and 20th October?

The Prime Minister: That does not seem to arise very much out of the Question but I welcome the spirit in which it was put. It has not been the practice in most cases to say who chairs individual Cabinet committees or who are their members. In view of certain things that were being said at that time, I thought it right to make the position clear. There was a widespread view, much fostered by certain sections of the Press and by a certain amount of gossip in the City, that certain documents which had been issued, not on the authority of the Government but outside by the party organisation, mainly deriving from last year, represented Government policy. I was attempting to make clear that Government policy was being decided and that policy will be decided and announced.

Mr. Thorpe: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Patronage Secretary is now a full member of the Cabinet, on which we would like to congratulate him? On those rare occasions when Cabinet views differ on any issue, will the right hon. Gentleman be put in charge of taking an opinion poll among Cabinet committee members?

The Prime Minister: The congratulations may be premature but I shall look at what the right hon. Gentleman said, particularly as I see that he has his "migraine" sitting beside him.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hal Miller, Question No. Q3.

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman raise his point of order at the end of Question Time?

Later—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Thorpe. Point of order.

Mr. Thorpe: After consideration, Mr. Speaker, I have decided to pursue the matter in other ways.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to attend the second part of the current session of the Assembly of the Western European Union.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have no plans to attend this meeting.

Mr. Miller: While regretting the Prime Minister's inability to take the opportunity to discuss the defence of Western Europe, may I ask whether he is aware that the pairing arrangements for the first part of the WEU session were broken by the Labour Party at great inconvenience to the Assembly and with lost opportunities to state the British point of view? Will he ensure that these official arrangements are observed at subsequent sessions?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I believe that there is very great value in parliamentary discussion of these defence matters. At the NATO twenty-fifth anniversary in my own brief contribution I paid great tribute to the North Atlantic Assembly, where I once headed our delegation, and pressed all our colleagues there to ensure the fullest parliamentary participation in these matters. With regard to the unfortunate incident referred to by the hon. Gentleman, I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): I am not the Patronage Secretary.

The Prime Minister: Then I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend, a large amount of whose time is not given to patronage, but who has to take account of all kinds of tomfoolery by the Conservative Party on late-night votes.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUC AND CBI (TALKS)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister what recent talks he has had with the Trades Union Congress and the

Confederation of British Industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with the TUC and CBI; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I am regularly in touch with representatives of the TUC and CBI through NEDC meetings. The meeting which I chaired on 3rd July was one of the most thoughtful and constructive I have attended and is a hopeful sign of the co-operation that is developing between the Government and both sides of industry.

Mr. Skinner: When he next meets the representatives of the buyers and sellers of labour, will my right hon Friend tell them that he has been listening closely to the majority moderate opinion within our country against the extremists? Will he tell them that the stifled cries he hears most loudly are those asking him to get out of the revolting Common Market into which the extremist leaders of the Tory and Liberal Parties dragged us, in which task the trade unions—the moderate trade unions—are assisting the British people in helping to get us cut?

The Prime Minister: Without following all the points made by my hon. Friend, I was struck by his reference to moderation in relation to the meeting I have described. Contrary to a great deal of panic statements and comments, and the stirring-up of divisions within the country, it was significant that, although great anxieties were expressed by the CBI and also by the TUC on certain aspects which have been raised this afternoon, a clear desire to work together for the good of the country was expressed at that meeting. Indeed, it began by the President of the CBI voluntarily congratulating the TUC on the social contract. That was a very important thing for him to have said on his own initiative. In this respect some Conservatives seem to be totally out of touch with industrial thinking.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon Friend also confirm that the trade unions on 3rd July recognised the extremely serious situation in which our economy is now placed? Will he also confirm that the economic advice given


to him prior to that meeting was that threshold agreements between now and November could result in 10 per cent. wage increases and that in total over the phase 3 period this would represent a price index increase of 17 per cent.? Is it not a fact that the increase in take-home pay over the same period is likely to be 13 per cent.? Therefore, since the trade unions recognise that this year under phase 3 they are likely to take a 4 per cent reduction in their living standards, it would probably help the country if in view of these facts the Conservative Party stopped attacking the trade unions on their attitude.

The Prime Minister: Much of what my hon. Friend said reflects the discussions on both sides of the meeting to which I referred. Threshold agreements have not worked out exactly in accordance with the expectations either of the Conservative Party or of myself, because I pressed threshold agreements on the then Conservative Prime Minister. As to the advice which my hon. Friend said was given to me at the meeting about thresholds, exactly the same advice was given to the Conservative Government.
With regard to what has happened since on thresholds, a great deal of anxiety has been stirred up as a result of panic Press comment, statements in the City and all the rest of it. However, the situation was known before polling day to all who studied these matters with the advantage of inside information. The same is true of most of the other factors.
While the situation faced by the country is extremely serious, for all the reasons we have stated, nothing that has happened since 4th March is new. All of it was forecast. It is wrong for Conservatives to talk of "price increases", because price increases had been forecast by them. While world prices, and therefore wholesale prices, are falling, it must be remembered that it takes seven to eight months for those to pass into the consumer sector. Therefore, the Conservative Government knew what the price situation would be today.

Mr. Tom Boardman: In the light of the discussions and advice he received, will the Prime Minister say what maximum average increase in wages and salaries he considers acceptable without

adding further to the inflationary pressures?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to a speech I made on this question to leaders and Prime Ministers from other parts of the world, on which there are Questions on the Order Paper. As we move from rigid wage controls, which broke down and which are still responsible for many of our problems today—literally today—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is in touch with the unions and, of course, with the CBI on the situation which is to follow the ending of the Pay Board. It would be easier to answer that question, I think, when these discussions have gone a little further.

Mr. Cant: Has the CBI, which is due to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet made up its mind whether it wants a reflationary Budget or a neutral mini-Budget?

The Prime Minister: I cannot answer that question, but the CBI at that meeting and in direct meetings with the Government has expressed anxiety about a number of issues of a continuing character affecting investment, cash flow and other matters. It was invited by my right hon. Friend to supplement what it said at that joint meeting by a separate meeting with him which is taking place, I think, later today.

Mr. Lawrence: Did the CBI also congratulate the Government on their plans for the nationalisation of British industry? Did the Prime Minister tell the gathering that he was considering a referendum on the issue? If not, why not?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member, like so many of his party, has become obsessive on this question. Here again, judging from that three-hour meeting, I think that Conservative Members are very much out of touch with industry on the questions of the abolition of the Pay Board and the social contract. In the three hours of the meeting—it was an open meeting at which any subject could be raised—the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers was not mentioned for more than one minute.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister has said that he cannot tell us what would


be the proper level of wage increases in the present situation. Therefore, when the President of the CBI congratulated the TUC and NEDC on the social contract did the right hon. Gentleman express agreement with him that the present level of wage increases of between 22 and 27 per cent. was fully justified in the present situation?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that wages over the past year have not kept pace with prices, despite threshold agreements. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is so churlish about the comment the CBI made. He should try to approach the spirit of the nation in the same way as the CBI does, if nothing else. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he tried to negotiate a voluntary agreement with the TUC and he did not at that time say what the level of wage increases should be. He carried on the negotiations about a voluntary agreement. He entirely failed because he refused to sacrifice any of the divisive policies of his Government.
We are now negotiating with the TUC on these matters. We shall be ready to give answers to this question at the right time, but it is important at this stage that we should continue these discussions and try, hard though it may be, to get out of the continuing difficulties arising from bureaucratic reports by the Pay Board which the right hon. Gentleman set up.

Mr. Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks back, he will recognise that he is mistaken in this matter. In the Chequers and No. 10 talks, specific figures were mentioned and debated among the TUC, the employers and ourselves on the basis of the gross national product in the forthcoming year. Therefore, this was a specific matter. The settlements which are being made now are to come into effect after the Government end stage 3, in addition to stage 3 rises negotiated this year and in addition to threshold payments. The settlements are at the moment between 22 and 27 per cent. Does the Prime Minister agree that these are justifiable or not?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the two cases which I think he has in mind. I would say that both of them related to large and substantial firms, both of which were

characterised by capital-intensive rather than labour-intensive industry. With the right hon. Gentleman's support of big business and the great fight he is putting up against any accountability of these firms to the nation, he should use his influence with these firms—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered. I said that I shared the right hon. Gentleman's concern when I saw the extent of those increases. But the right hon. Gentleman should use his influence with his friends in dealing with these matters.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: Would the Leader of the House be so kind as to give us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15th July—Proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill.
Remaining stages of the Policing of Airports Bill, of the Railways Bill and of the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Bill.
TUESDAY 16th July and WEDNESDAY 17th July—Progress on the Report stage of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 18th July—Motion on the Counter-Inflation (Abolition of Pay Board) Order.
Consideration of any Lords Amendments which may be received to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill.
FRIDAY 19th July—Remaining stages of the Consumer Credit Bill [Lords], and of the Control of Pollution Bill [Lords].
MONDAY 22nd July—Completion of the remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Heath: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that announcement. Can he tell us whether, and if so when, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making an announcement about any economic measures he may wish to take? Second, I understand that there is to be an important statement by the Secretary of State for Energy about oil policy. Will the Leader of the House note that this is such an important matter that we shall probably want to debate it before the House rises? Third, can he assure


us that the White Paper which the Government intend to publish about the nationalisation and State control of British industry will be published before the House rises and that there will be a full opportunity to debate it before the recess?

Mr. Short: On the Chancellor's statement, I hope that the two-day debate on economic affairs will be the week after next. I cannot say whether the Chancellor will be making a statement before the debate or in the debate, but I will certainly pass on the question to him. Second, on my right hon. Friend's very important statement on oil today, there will be an opportunity to debate this subject before the recess. On industry, I cannot say whether the White Paper will be published before the recess, but, whether it is or not, I am very sorry but we cannot find any time to debate it before the recess.

Mr. Heath: We are grateful for the information that the right hon. Gentleman has given us about the debate, but will he note that I think that hon Members on both sides of the House would wish the Chancellor to make his statement at least the day before the debate so that we may have proper opportunity to consider it before either Front Benchers or back benchers give their views about it in the two-day debate? It is not satisfactory, particularly for the first day's debate, that we should have the statement at the beginning of the debate with no opportunity to give it proper consideration. Would the right hon. Gentleman convey these views to the Chancellor.
I asked about the White Paper on nationalisation. It is quite unsatisfactory that a White Paper of this kind should be published when the House is in recess and it is equally unsatisfactory, if it is published when the House is sitting, that there should be no opportunity to debate a matter of this importance. If the right hon. Gentleman is hoping that the House will rise on Wednesday 31st July, as we understand, I would point out that the whole House would be prepared to sit for the extra day to debate that White Paper.

Mr. Short: On the first point, there are precedents both ways; I have looked

into the matter. On some occasions Chancellors have made a statement before the debate and on others during the debate. However, I will certainly convey what the right hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend. On the second point, it is a generally accepted rule here that when a very important White Paper has been published there should be time to allow people to discuss it and talk about it and consider it before it is debated in the House.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House has been waiting a very long time for a statement on the Government's proposals in respect of the Hardman Report? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that we shall have such a statement before we rise for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Short: I know about my hon. Friend's concern for Cumberland and about the concern of other hon. Members from the development areas. Certainly I hope that a statement will be made before the recess.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Report of the Committee of Privileges on the complaint made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has been issued today. Are we likely to have an opportunity to get the House to accept the findings of the Committee next week, or is that not necessary in view of the fact that the Committee was unanimous in saying that there was no ground for complaint? Does the Committee's finding mean that people outside may take any steps in the courts that they may wish to take? If they decide not to take steps in the courts, shall we have the evidence which was not included in the report because of the possibility that there might be a court action made available to hon. Members?
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman say what has happened to the Report of the Committee of Privileges on the matter relating to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), which it considered earlier?

Mr. Short: On the first issue which the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir H. Nicholls) has raised, the report was published at 12 o'clock today. I do not think it will be necessary to debate


it in the House. It is up to people outside this House to take what action they wish to take now.
I am not sure what the answer is to the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised. I will look into it and let him know.

Mr. Ford: When does my right hon. Friend intend to publish the Boyle Report on Members' allowances? Can he give a date for his announcement in this connection to assist hon. Members with their secretarial arrangements?

Mr. Short: I shall make a statement on the Boyle Report before the recess.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsherg: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to find time for a debate upon his own motion about security and passes for hon. Members?

Mr. Short: I hope that this matter will be debated during the week after next.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the very great concern felt by London teachers at the Pay Board's so-called report on the London weighting question. In view of the intense annoyance and anger which has been caused by this, if my right hon. Friend cannot find time for a debate, will he have discussions with all those responsible in order to try to get some sense into this matter?

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend will know that I myself am very concerned about this matter, as are the Government. It is now being negotiated in the Burnham Committee. Until it resolves the matter, I think that we had better leave it there.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When will the Government announce the measures that they intend to take, pursuant to the resolution passed by this House recently, to give another supplementary rate support grant for which many millions of people are waiting?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman will have seen what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said about this, and he will know about the inquiry that we have set up. I have nothing to add at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman cares to put a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am sure that he will get an answer.

Mr. Donald Stewart: May I raise two matters with the Leader of the House? First, when shall we have a debate on Scottish affairs? Secondly, what progress has been made towards providing facilities for Opposition parties? Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me, as leader of one party in this House which is expanding instead of contracting, that this is of some interest to me?

Mr. Short: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I am afraid that I cannot promise any more time before the recess. As for his second question, I hope to talk to him and his hon. Friends some time in the next few days and to make a statement before the recess.

Mr. George Cunningham: My right hon. Friend will recall the concern expressed on both sides of the House two weeks ago about the proposal in respect of political appointments in the Civil Service. Can my right hon. Friend tell us that the matter will be discussed in the House before we go into recess?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. I cannot. What I undertook was that there would be an opportunity to debate the matter before the Government took any further action.

Mr. Churchill: Is the Leader of the House aware that I have already followed his advice, given a moment ago, to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), by putting down a Question to the Secretary of State for Environment about the implementation of the express wish of Parliament for an urgent measure of rate relief this year, and that I have been given an answer to the effect that the implications of this parliamentary vote are being considered by the Government? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when some measure is likely to be put before the House? Does he appreciate that we shall expect a statement before we go into recess?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. I cannot. As I said just now, I have nothing to add to that. It means what it says. My right hon. Friend is considering the implications of this vote.

Mr. George Lawson: Will my right hon. Friend find time to permit the House to debate the proposals arising out of the


Kilbrandon Report so that it can be made very clear that, if a legislative assembly is given to Scotland, there will be no possibility of a Secretary of State for Scotland and 71 Members of Parliament from Scotland continuing in this House?

Mr. Short: Without commenting on or accepting the latter part of my hon. Friend's statement, the time to debate this matter will be when the Government have concrete proposals to put before the House.

Sir John Rodgers: Will the Leader of the House give consideration to the problems arising from the printing of HANSARD and parliamentary papers? The present system is a total disgrace. Ought we not to have a system whereby parliamentary papers are printed either in or near this House, under the control of this House and where conditions of employment are such that striking is not allowed?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman knows that this has been one of my major preoccupations for the past fortnight. I have checked on the business for next week, and I am assured that all papers will be available for those debates. I ask hon. Members to exercise a little good will in this, as we did when we were in Opposition, and perhaps put up with a little inconvenience.

Mr. David Steel: Since the right hon. Gentleman has said that there is no time for a debate in the House on Scottish affairs, may I draw his attention to the fact that there are still four meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee remaining which are not yet earmarked? Will not the right hon. Gentleman allow at least a two-day debate there on the Kilbrandon proposals?

Mr. Short: I will look into that possibility.

Mr. Spriggs: Has my right hon. Friend considered the early-day motion about concessionary television licences which recalls that quite a number of members of the present Government signed similar motions in the last Parliament? What consideration is my right hon. Friend giving to allowing the House to debate this matter?
That this House, recalling the Early Day Motions on the granting of concessionary television licences to retirement pensioners signed during the last Parliament by Labour Members of this honourable House, including Ministers in the present administration, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce immediately concessionary television licences to aged persons living as separate households, similar to those granted to aged persons occupying accommodation having a shared service.

Mr. Short: I cannot provide time for a debate on this matter, but the Government are reviewing the situation at the moment.

Mr. Fidler: Will there be an announcement next week in relation to Members' expenses and other allowances? I do not know whether at the same time the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to refer to Member's salaries.

Mr. Short: I shall be making a statement before the recess on the four aspects of Members' expenses which I referred to Lord Boyle.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: May I press my right hon. Friend a little further on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis)? May we have an indication as to when we are likely to debate the very sore question of local allowances to teachers and nurses in places such as Watford which are sadly neglected by the Pay Board Report? Is not my right hon. Friend aware that these teachers and nurses are very distressed by the neglect?

Mr. Short: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), we share the concern of hon. Members about this matter, but the Burnham Committee is negotiating on the report at present.

Mrs. Knight: Is the Leader of the House aware that what he said about the printing of parliamentary papers was very far from satisfactory? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen what purports to be yesterday's HANSARD? Is he aware, further, that the work of hon. Members is being severely hampered because of the lack of proper papers?

Mr. Short: I realise that hon. Members are being put to considerable inconvenience, as they have been in the past. All I ask is that they show a little


good will in this difficult matter. Just as the previous administration did in similar circumstances, we shall do our best.

Mr. McNamara: In view of my right hon. Friend's helpful and encouraging reply last week about a Second Reading for the Hare Coursing Bill, is he in a position to indicate on which night that will be taken, and whether we shall be able to take the remaining stages afterwards?

Mr. Short: I do not know when it will be, but it will be some time before the recess. If my hon. Friend will try again tomorrow, we shall see where we go from there.

Mr. Hurd: May I press the point made by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). Will the Leader of the House ensure that proper time is made available for debating the proposal about help for political parties and that we do not have only a statement? Does he accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House will probably want to look carefully at any proposals for compelling the taxpayer to finance the activities of political parties?

Mr. Short: A certain amount is done now. The Opposition are to some extent financed at the present time. We felt that in a modern democracy we should help Opposition parties to carry out their duties more efficiently. The proposals will be published before the recess and I shall be making an announcement in the House. They will not come into operation until after the recess. Therefore, if the House wishes, and I could be informed through the usual channels, I could probably arrange an opportunity to debate these proposals after the recess.

Mr. Urwin: Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to ensure that a Bill will be presented to the House before the recess aimed at the control of labour-only sub-contracting in the construction industry, which is a matter of vital importance? Amidst the clamour for debates about Scotland and Kilbrandon, does he appreciate that it is equally important to find time to discuss the economic development of the Northern Region and other development areas?

Mr. Short: On the second point, I agree that some of our debates on regional development have been the most useful in this House, and when we have time we shall resume them. I think that my hon. Friend talked about the Northern Region.
The Government are actively considering the control of labour-only subcontracting and will bring proposals before the House in the not-too-distant future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising from the reply by the Leader of the House relating to parliamentary papers, may I draw attention to the fact that he may have overdone it in making sure that we have ample papers before us because two motions on overseas aid, for voting if not debate, later this evening are backed by two different draft statutory instruments applying to each, which are available in the Vote Office? I suggest that it would be as well, since one involves the expenditure of £68 million, for the House to ensure that it is approving the right copy of the statutory instrument. May I invite the Leader of the House to consider whether this large sum of money should come within the scope of Standing Order No. 73A(5).

Mr. Short: I will look into it.

OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS POLICY

3.53 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Eric Varley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The Labour Party election manifesto expressed
Labour's determination to ensure not only that the North Sea and Celtic Sea oil and gas resources are in full public ownership, but that the operation of getting and distributing them is under full Government control with majority public participation.
The Government have also made it clear that it is their intention to ensure that, as a result of the exploitation of


these resources, maximum benefit is conferred on the community, and particularly on Scotland and the regions elsewhere within which the older industrial revolution industries were developed and which have suffered for a generation from the decline of those industries.
I have today presented a paper, copies of which will be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office, which sets out the action which the Government intend to take to achieve these objectives.
First, we propose an additional tax on profits from the Continental Shelf and the closing of various loopholes in the rules governing existing taxation of oil companies' profits.
Secondly, we propose to make it a condition of future licences that the licensees shall, if the Government so require, grant majority participation to the State in all fields discovered under those licences.
Thirdly, we shall be inviting the companies to enter into discussions with us about majority State participation in existing licences for commercial fields.
Fourthly, we shall set up a British National Oil Corporation through which the Government will exercise their participation rights.
Fifthly, we shall extend our powers of physical control over offshore operations. including production, and over pipeline developments.
Sixthly, we shall set up a Scottish Development Agency and make similar arrangements for Wales as oil exploration develops in the Celtic Sea.
These are comprehensive and far reaching proposals. They show the Government's determination to act, and to act quickly, to ensure that the nation gets full benefit from our newly discovered wealth, while leaving a substantial rôle for the oil companies.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: rose—

Mr, Speaker: Order. I remind the House that a debate has been promised on this topic. Therefore, I hope that we shall have questions, not expressions of opinion.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask why, when full details of this matter were not only broadcast every hour from six o'clock

last night, but the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) went on London Radio this morning to debate and discuss it, the time of the House is now being wasted? This matter has been broadcast from six o'clock last night every hour on the hour on L.B.C.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is a matter for me.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Following what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) said, I must say that the Department of Energy has become the master of the contradictory leak. The number of different versions of the statement which have appeared in the Press has been quite astonishing.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while we must await the details, we welcome the proposals for taxation, because these were in part announced and foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Secondly, we welcome the proposals for strengthening the controls over offshore operations which the previous Government already had under review.
Thirdly, we welcome—[Interruption.]—I should be interested to compare the right hon. Gentleman's list with mine. We welcome the announcement of a Scottish Development Fund, because that reflects exactly the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition speaking at Ayr last month.
I should like to ask three questions. First, regarding existing licences, the right hon. Gentleman said that he will
invite the companies to enter into discussions.
Will he give the House a categorical assurance that this will be a voluntary negotiation with the perfect right for members of these consortia to refuse?
Secondly, is he prepared to make any distinction in favour of those groups which already include a public sector partner, bearing in mind that, including the 12½ per cent. royalties, the Government already have a 28 per cent. share in the successful fields that have so far been discovered?
Thirdly, since it is the general expectation in the industry that investment


of about £1,500 will be needed to produce a barrel-a-day flow of oil, if we assume 2½ million to 3 million barrels a day as the production by 1980, an investment of £3½ billion to £4½ billion will be required. Is he aware that 51 per cent. of that will be about £2 billion? Why on earth must the British taxpayer be saddled with finding sums of that magnitude simply to raise the money which could perfectly well be raised by taxation without any need for investment at all? Is this not simply nationalisation for nationalisation's sake?

Mr. Varley: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that at least some of these measures, and certainly the tax proposals that I have announced, were prepared by the previous administration. It is a pity that the Conservative Government did not publish and tell the House about their tax proposals so that hon. Members could judge them. The House never saw any such proposals.
My statement means that we are inviting the companies to discuss the question of participation in existing licences. We are inviting them to have meaningful discussions with us, and we hope that these talks will go ahead as quickly as possible.
I am astonished at the Conservative Party's inferiority complex in this matter. We want to make sure that the British people get a proper share and benefit from North Sea oil and gas. The right hon. Gentleman is already rewriting history, just as he did on the subject of night storage heaters, because only two months ago, when speaking in Oslo, he said that though "carried interest" and participation would be controversial in Britain, the last Conservative Government had by no means ruled it out.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the House a few more details about the Scottish Development Agency? This appears to be what Scotland gets out of this. What finances will it have, what power will it have, and whom does the right hon. Gentleman intend to put on it?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that arrangements made by local authorities in Scotland will not be interfered with, and will he say something more about the form

of Government participation? Is it not the case that the Government have the right to appoint two directors to BP, one of whom is always a retired diplomat in search of a post, while the Other office has been vacant for eight months?

Mr. Varley: The interests of Scotland, Wales and some of the regions of Britain will be represented on the British National Oil Corporation. We want to get the Scottish Development Agency under way immediately, rather than wait for the oil revenues, which have not started flowing. The agency will be financed by the United Kingdom Exchequer, and it will be directly responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Dr. Phipps: What will be the relation. ship between the proposed British National Oil Corporation and the existing interests of the Gas Corporation and the National Coal Board?

Mr. Varley: Is it our intention that the holding of the National Coal Board will be transferred to the British National Oil Corporation. The Gas Corporation already has a capability in the North Sea. We want to work out a close relationship between the Gas Corporation and the new oil corporation.

Mr. Peyton: Only three things matter here—getting the oil as quickly, as cheaply and as safely as possible. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that none of his proposals will impede any of those things?

Mr. Varley: We want to see the oil landed ashore as quickly as possible, and that is part of our purpose in having these arrangements. I do not think that there is a lot of disagreement about that, but it is our intention to have what can be described as a proper depletion rate. One reason for these powers of participation is to ensure that, eventually, as the oil builds up and starts to flow there is a proper depletion rate and we have some control over it.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Scotland will welcome his statement about the agency, coming, as it does, on the anniversary of the birth of Robert the Bruce? My right hon. Friend should realise that the people of Scotland will write a new chapter into the history books.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that this statement honours another pledge that was given by the Labour Party in Scotland during the February election; namely, that it would set up a Scottish Oil Development Agency to help rebuild the infrastructure and the industrial future of Scotland?
Does my right hon. Friend realise that his statement today will be violently opposed by both the Tories and the Tartan Tories who are in favour of leaving the oil with the oil companies and have written that into their programme? Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to make that known to everybody?

Mr. Varley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that the Government's proposals will be welcomed in Scotland and be seen as a fulfilment of the pledge in our election manifesto.
I have already said that the Scottish Development Agency will be under the control and operation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I can tell my hon. Friend that the headquarters of the British National Oil Corporation will be in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the tremendous and widespread anger throughout Scotland over the sequestration by England of Scotland's principal natural resource? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the absence of any specific reference to the oil revenues coming to Scotland will cause concern to many people? If it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to make a direct allocation of the oil revenues to Scotland, will he now state categorically what proportion of them will go to the Scottish Development Agency?
In view of the failure of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) to defend Scottish interests, and in view, too, of his selling of the Labour Party short in Scotland, will the Minister ask for his hon. Friend's immediate resignation?

Mr. Varley: I find it difficult to understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman and the Scottish National Party. I do

not doubt the hon. Gentleman's sincerity and his wish to help the people of Scotland—I, too, hope that the benefits of offshore oil will go to Scotland—but I found the actions of his party a few weeks ago in voting with the Conservative Party against the principle of public enterprise rather astonishing. It is only through public participation that the people of Scotland will benefit.
The Scottish Development Agency will be got under way immediately. We do not want to wait until the oil revenues come in. We want the agency to be financed immediately so that the Scottish people will benefit.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman avoid the separatist and other less desirable proposals of the SNP which would mean unemployment in industries in the Scottish central belt and in other non-oil-related industries in Scotland, whose biggest export markets are south of the border, and could also mean a reduction in the Scottish population to the size of that of Norway?

Mr. Varley: I have some difficulty in understanding the hon. Gentleman. We know that the oil companies will respond to the proposals that we are making. We know, too, that they want to get into serious discussion with us about how to fulfil our plans.

Mr. Kinnock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a widespread welcome for the beginnings of Socialism in the North and Celtic Seas but that his proposals, so far as we have heard them, regrettably do not provide enough resilience for the possibility of change under another Government who, for ideological reasons, could dismantle the whole machinery of State participation in the North and Celtic Seas? Many people who will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement will require extra power to be given to the State oil corporation and the people behind it.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the opinion of Mr. Arve Johnsen, Managing Director of Stat Oil, the Norwegian National Oil Corporation, a much smaller nation than ours, was that "a nation should be in the driving seat" and this means that such a national asset should be in our ownership and for our profit right down the line?

Mr. Varley: When my hon. Friend has had a chance to consider the paper he will be reminded that North Sea oil is already nationalised. That was done by the last Conservative Government but one, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home). We are determined to ensure that we have a majority of the participation in future licences and where possible we shall renegotiate existing licences. I am confident that we can do that and will have a proper capability within the new British National Oil Corporation.

Mr. Heath: Could the Secretary of State address himself to what I think is the key point on all this? He has just said that, as a result of the Continental Shelf Act under the Conservative Government 1963–64, no oil can be produced except with the permission of the State, which is done through licensing.
As far as control of the oil is concerned, that also is governed by licensing the oil which has to be landed on our shores. The Secretary of State can take power through the licences to control the rate at which oil is produced from particular fields when they are discovered. Any Secretary of State can have complete control over the production of the oil and, as we used the powers before last Christmas, he also has power to control the export from this country of various types of oil. Therefore the powers of the Secretary of State in this respect can cover all aspects of the production and distribution of oil.
There then comes a key question. How does a proper share of the revenue from this come to the State? In this respect there are two systems. There can be "carried interest", in which the State has a participation in the actual expenditure on the oil and takes part of the profits; or there can be the system in which the State taxes the proceeds of the oil, if necessary by a special tax solely dealing with oil.
This is the point I wish to put to the Secretary of State. It is a crucial point, He has announced, I believe quite rightly, that the State will ensure a proper proportion of the revenue through taxation. Why, therefore, is it necessary, in view of the fact that he can have complete control over all other aspects of oil

through his powers, for the people of this country to have to provide by 1980 £2 billion sterling from taxation or loans in order to put it into this industry? That is a crucial point to which the right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself.

Mr. Varley: The question of negotiations on existing licences will take place quickly. I do not accept the figures just given by the right hon. Gentleman. We can get the required degree of control over oil only by public participation.
The right hon. Gentleman should know of the excellent Report of the Public Accounts Committee for 1972–73. The Committee was chaired by my right hon. Friend, the Paymaster-General. There was a majority of Conservative Members on that Committee, as is usual with the PAC. The eight Tory Members of the Public Accounts Committee said:
We were also concerned that there was no provision for variation or renegotiation of the financial terms, however large the find, or for obtaining a degree of Government participation.
I am astonished that the Leader of the Opposition, referring to participation, said on 26th March
We believe that that should be introduced only for existing licences."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 339.]
That is what he said, and that is what we are proposing to do. That is what we shall talk to the oil companies about. Every major country in the world with oil reserves is negotiating some kind of State participation. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should say that the tiniest Persian Gulf State can have participation but that the British Government cannot.

Mr. Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory, he will find that I said during the debate on the Address that if the Government were determined to go for participation, they ought not to behave as other States had behaved in altering existing contracts, because we as a country have always protested against that in the interests of BP and Shell, our own companies. But the Secretary of State has still not answered my question. When he can get all the revenue he requires through taxation, why must he use £2 billion sterling of public money—taxpayers' money or from loans—in this way?

Mr. Varley: The oil companies must borrow money. The State can borrow money.

Mr. Heath: Why?

Mr. Varley: If the right hon. Gentleman will listen he will receive the answer.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that most of the oil companies will receive a major return on their capital within a year or two as a result of the North Sea operations. The Government can come to arrangements, just as the oil companies can come to arrangements. There is no doubt that we can do that. We are not talking about confiscation. We are talking about negotiating "carried interest". We can do that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There will be a debate on this matter.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You earlier asked hon. Members to be brief. Most hon. Members, including many back benchers and myself, want to accede to your request. But the Opposition Front Bench speakers were lengthy. May I ask whether your request applies to the Opposition Front Bench as much as to the rest of us?

Mr. Speaker: Of course my request applies to the whole House.

Mr. Sproat: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that neither today nor yesterday at Question Time, when oil was discussed, nor during the previous Scottish Question Time, when oil was discussed, have I been able to catch your eye in connection with questions relating to oil?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. I do my best, but some hon. Members take a lot of time.

Mr. Terry Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, as a mere back bencher, ask for your protection in these matters? Much time is spent raising matters during Question Time. On Tuesday I put down a Question—No. Q3—to the Prime Minister. That was not reached. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition is taking up the time of this House by starting the election campaign, thus denying back benchers the right to ask Questions of the Prime Minister during Question Time, The time of this House is being taken up to no avail. I ask for your protection in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I will gladly give the hon. Member such protection as I can. I thought we did rather better today during Prime Minister's Questions. If hon. Members look at the record they will discover that the Answers take just as long as the Questions.

Mr. Churchill: The Government have made a statement today which will involve the expenditure of several thousands of millions of pounds by 1980. Would it not be in order for the Minister to say what is the Government estimate of the cost?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. The House has a great deal of business today. As I said, I think yesterday. I have noted those hon. Members who have tried to catch my eye. When we come to the debate, I shall not forget that I have been unable to call them today.

BILL PRESENTED

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Mr. John Roper presented a Bill to repeal section 1(4) of the Friendly Societies Act 1896: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19th July and to be printed [Bill 91].

Orders of the Day — TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 10

ACTS IN CONTEMPLATION OR FURTHERANCE OF TRADE DISPUTES

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 80, in page 9, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
'(1) An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable in tort on the ground only—
(a) that it induces another person to break a contract of employment; or
(b) that it consists in his threatening that a contract of employment (whether one to which he is a party or not) will be broken or that he will induce another person to break a contract of employment to which that other person is a party.'

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 64, in page 9, leave out lines 29 and 30.

No. 70, in page 9, line 12, after 'contract', insert 'of employment'.

No. 71, in page 9, line 12, leave out from 'contract' to 'or' in line 14.

No. 72, in page 9, line 15, after ' contract ', insert `of employment'.

No. 73, page 9, line 16, leave out
'or its performance interfered with'.

No. 74, in page 9, line 18, after 'contract', insert:
of employment to which that other person is a party'.

No. 75, in page 9, line 18, leave out
'or to interfere with its performance'.

No. 76, in page 9, line 26, leave out subsection (3).

No. 77, in page 9, line 29, after 'contract', insert ' of employment'.

Mr. Percival: Yesterday was a very frustrating day for the Liberal Party and ourselves. However, when I met the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith) this morning, as he and I have met so often during the last six or seven weeks, we agreed that yesterday, like all yester

days, is history and that what matters is today. Although he is not present in the Chamber now, I know that he is on on his way. I am grateful to him for taking that line. I am glad that we are entirely in agreement that there are very important matters before the House today on which we shall hope to persuade the Government, or, if not persuade them, carry against them improvements which should be made to the Bill.
I come straight to the first problem. This group of amendments deals with what is generally and loosely referred to as the immunities. I sometimes think that some people talk about "the immunities" without very much understanding of what that is about. It is an area in which the law intervenes to put employers' associations and trade unions into a position that is different from that of the rest of us. That much cannot be controverted. I would go on to say, as I have said previously, that it is a very advantageous position. That cannot be controverted, either.
I should like to illustrate in purely practical terms what this question is about. If I were to enter into a contract with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State to do something, and some third person induced me to break it, interfered with my performance of it or prevented me from performing it, the Secretary of State might take that very amiss. He would take it amiss if I were trying to perform the contract and someone else stepped in and tried to prevent me, to the Secretary of State's damage. He would think that the law was an ass if it did not provide him with a remedy. The law is not an ass. It does provide a remedy in such circumstances.
Broadly, interference of that kind, for which there is not lawful justification, gives a person who is injured by it a right to damages. In continuing to relate this matter to practical questions, if we apply that to trade union activities we see immediately that unless some change is made we shall get into this difficulty. If a trade union leader wants to call his men out and does not want to persuade them to terminate their contracts, the only way that he can do so is by inducing them to break their contracts.
We on the Opposition side of the House accept, as Conservative Governments have accepted for a very long time,


that if the law to be applied to that situation was precisely the same as to be applied to any other situation, it would make the activities of a genuine trade union leader, acting in what everyone would agree was a reasonable manner, very difficult indeed. Ever since 1906, therefore, some protection has been given to the union leader against that sort of danger.
One sees in the first line of Amendment No. 80 the protection that has been given since 1906, that is to say,
An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable in tort on the ground only…that it induces another person to break a contract of employment.
One can relate that directly to the practical necessities of responsible trade union workings. But it might be said to be illogical to give protection against the doing of an act while not giving protection against the threat to do it. Accordingly, the Conservative Opposition and the Liberal Party accept that the alteration made in the Trade Disputes Act 1965 has a logic about it. That is incorporated in our amendments. Paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 80 states
that it consists in his threatening that a contract of employment (whether one to which he is a party or not) will be broken or that he will induce another person to break a contract of employment to which that other person is a party.
One thing that is quite clear about these amendments is that Amendment No. 80 plus Amendment No. 76—which is to leave out subsection (3)—would put the law back to exactly what it was pre-1971. That is because paragraph (a) of our subsection (1) incorporates in full the provisions of the 1906 Act. If read together with subsection (2) of the Bill and paragraph (b) of our new subsection (1), it gives full effect to the Trade Disputes Act 1965. The other difference is the introduction of subsection (3), so if we left that out we would be back where we were before 1971. There can be no question whatever about that. I hope that no time will be wasted on that issue—as it was wasted in Committee.
What protection, then, was given by those provisions to which I have referred and which we seek to reinstate? It is important to notice that the whole of these provisions are conditioned by the words

an act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
Not every act that is done, I concede, attracts this protection. It is only an act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. I should be out of order in developing this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that it is permissible, in passing—because it is relevant—to draw attention to the fact that the definition of a trade dispute is widened in the Bill. Therefore, by that fact alone, the area over which the immunities apply is increased. But we are concerned here with the widening of the immunity or protection.
By simply comparing the amendments with the terms of the Bill, hon. Members will see at a glance what is added by the Bill. If one takes Amendment No. 80 as being what the position was pre-1971, everything that is added in the Bill is extra. Curiously enough, the first addition is made by a subtraction—by leaving out the words "of employment". In future this provision refers to all contracts
Let me draw attention, albeit very briefly, to the fact that to allow interference with commercial contracts is an entirely different cup of tea from allowing interference with contracts of employment. One can see the logic of why this immunity was first given because, as I have said, one can see that one could not call men out without running the risk of being liable in tort without that immunity against inducing a breach of contract. But inducing a breach of a commercial contract is another cup of tea altogether. That does not need any painting. But that is not the only addition. There is another enormous addition. I hope that on this occasion the Secretary of State will admit it. There was an awful lot of humbug about what he said in Committee about merely putting matters back to 1971. One of his hon. Friends said that the Government were extending this provision because it ought to be extended. He was much more realistic.
The other way in which the Government are extending the scope of these immunities, as is manifest from comparing the Bill and the amendments, is that the Bill extends them to interference with the performance of a contract—interference of any kind. In addition,


there is a further extension by the introduction of subsection (3), the effect of which is also known to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. So one asks oneself: what is the case for this extension?—because an extension, and a very big extension, there undoubtedly is.
4.30 p.m.
I hope we shall not hear again the argument that there is not really an extension. That was what the Secretary of State tried to say. I read the report of his remarks again this morning and if he was not saying that then some of the words he used look suspiciously like it—but no doubt he will explain himself in his own good time. One of his hon. Friends was much more realistic when he said that of course this is an extension and that this extension is needed because it is necessary for Parliament to steps in and help trade unions in their fight against capitalism. That is where we part company.
It would be much more realistic if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side, and people in the TUC, sometimes admitted that. Many people do not take the view that the trade unions are weak bodies which cannot fight for themselves. They take the view that, as in most other walks of life, the strength of trade unions varies. Some are in a very weak position, and we would like them assisted and not put in a weaker position. But the extraordinary thing about this Bill is that some that are in a weak position will find themselves in a weaker one if we do not manage to change some of the things we are to discuss later.
What surprises us is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and those in the TUC never seem prepared even to concede the possibility that some unions, far from needing more assistance from Parliament, are well able to look after themselves in every respect; and a good many people would feel that we are perhaps getting the balance a little too much their way. An hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If people who think that are wrong an awful lot of people are wrong, because there are between 12 million and 15 million people who feel that. They may be wrong, but I do not think they are.
Hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite and in the TUC talk of the need for

consensus. Of course, we agree that if one can get consensus that is very desirable and has very good practical effect. But we on the Opposition side are beginning to feel that in their book "consensus" means "with the consent of the TUC and of the Left Wing." A majority of people in this country are getting a bit fed up with that, and many millions think it is about time that some of those who take the view I have just suggested woke up to the fact that "consensus" means "consent both ways" and that if they really wish to enjoy advantages—one must not use the word "privileges", about which there was so much discussion in Committee—and to be in an advantageous position, compared with that of other people, they should accept that that should be a position which has the consent of the many millions of people who do not enjoy that advantage. If they will approach the matter in that way, saying they realise that consensus is a two-sided and not a one-sided thing, we really shall begin to make progress in achieving the better atmosphere that I know all of us want to achieve.
I have endeavoured to present the case briefly, in an entirely new and practical way, without getting into the arguments we had in Committee and without going over the details again; but I hope the Secretary of State will, if he will forgive me for saying so, do better than what I referred to as "humbug" in his last speech on this in Committee. In particular, I hope we are not going to have it suggested once again that all the right hon. Gentleman is doing is giving effect to Donovan, because what he is suggesting here is not only not giving effect to Donovan; it is something totally different from what Donovan recommended.
I would here refer to a quotation which I included in a speech I made in Committee. I quoted Lord Donovan as saying:
…if Section 3 is extended in this way,
and what he meant by that is extended by taking out the words "of employment"—and making it applicable to all contracts:
then an employer's source of materials can be cut off by inducing the supplier not to supply, and the outlet for his goods can be cut off by inducing the customer not to buy.
That describes in a very few words one of the biggest extensions which is brought


about by leaving out these two words. His Lordship continued:
The inducement could take the form of threatened strike against the supplier or the customer. Again, the majority of us proposed that this extension of immunity should be confined to trade unions and their officials because they could be made accountable for its abuse.
There is no such limitation in this Bill. These provisions are not limited to trade union officials in the course of their duty or at all but apply to any person. The noble Lord went on:
But if unofficial elements and ephemeral combinations which are here today and gone tomorrow are to have the same licence"—
and they would have under this Bill—
then a prospect is opened up which I find alarming. Yet this is apparently what is contemplated, and I find it all the more alarming because it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Cooper said, that there are those who have a vested interest"—
and this is not a person from this side of the House but a good trade unionist—
not in industrial peace but in industrial unrest, and here we give them another opportunity for exploitation of a licence which they should never have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E. 18th June 1974; c. 496.]
So, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, there are the strongest reasons set out as succinctly as they could be for not making the extensions that are made in this Bill without any compensating balancing factors such as Lord Donovan had in mind in proposing that this extension should be made.
I hope also that we shall not hear any suggestion that because the immunity given under the 1971 Act in some cases referred to breach of commercial contracts, it in any way justifies what the right hon. Gentleman is doing; because no doubt he will appreciate that contracts for employment are wholly different and much more akin to that suggested by Lord Donovan. The only people who would have had that immunity under that Act were people having responsibilities placed on them by the Act.
There is a whole string of amendments being debated together. May I offer to assist the House on the practical questions that arise on this matter? Amendment No. 80 is a composite amendment taking the place of six other amendments—Nos. 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75. The effects of those six amendments

are brought into one section by Amendment No. 80. It is our view—shared by the hon. Member for Rochdale—that that is the basic amendment upon which one votes and, that being so, Amendments Nos. 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75 are irrelevant.
Then one comes to Amendment No. 76. Amendment No. 80 deals with the matters to which I have referred in my speech. Amendment No. 76 has to be taken separately, because it seeks to leave out subsection (3), which is the other difference in this clause which widens immunities as I have stated. I feel that if the case arose a separate Division on that would be possible. Although being discussed and considered together with others for convenience, one would feel that a separate vote should be called on that if required.
If Amendment No. 76 is carried the whole of subsection (3) has gone, and therefore the amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale and his right hon. and hon. Friends would no longer be relevant, because it seeks to leave out two lines from subsection (3). But if Amendment No. 76 were to fail, Amendment No. 64 would become relevant, and we would take the same view as the hon. Member. If we cannot get the whole section out let us get those two lines out. Therefore, I assume. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if it became relevant that would be a fit matter for a separate vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I made this matter clear. Amendment No. 64 is wrongly marshalled, and being an amendment to reject lines 29 and 30 it should be placed immediately after Amendment No. 76.

Mr. Percival: The Table was kind enough to tell me that that point had been observed and it was on that assumption that I was dealing with the amendments in the order I was, because when Amendment No. 64 is marshalled into its correct place in the manner in which you have just indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the votes could come in the order in which I have been dealing with them.
I finally come to Amendment No. 77. If Amendment No. 76 were lost and the hon. Member for Rochdale wanted a Division on Amendment No. 64, and it


fell, Amendment No. 77 would become relevant and we should have to consider whether a vote should be taken on that amendment.
These are four separate matters which emerge from this whole group of amendments. I commend Amendment No. 80 to the House.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I do not know whether any other hon. Member wishes to address the House, but none rose when I rose to speak. I dare say that others may wish to intervene later, and by speaking now I do not seek to preclude them, even if I had the power to do so, which I do not have.
As in Committee, we are extremely grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) for the way in which he elucidates all these matters, Some of us are certainly much wiser at the end of his speeches than we were at the beginning—particularly when we have heard the speech two or three times. I am therefore happy to respond to his speech in the way in which he made it.
In our debates yesterday I said that I thought the subject under debate was extremely important. No one could deny that, whatever the difference of view we might take about the solution to be sought. Clause 10, as it now is, is an extremely important part of the Bill, of course, although I differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman in some of the interpretations that he makes about the meaning of our clause and some of the claims that he has made for his different approach.
I say in no controversial spirit that I am extremely touched by the appeal that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes to the Liberal Party in the name of 1906. He certainly pinched that from me, at any rate, because that is what I said in Committee. The only difference between my appeal and his is that I am entitled to make it and he is not, because it so happens that in 1906 the Labour Party and the Liberal Party saw eye to eye on the matter, and I do not recall that the Conservatives of that day favoured the 1906 Act. However, we understand that they are now in favour of the 1906 Act and we ought to welcome that sign of progress, and I am happy to see that we

have made that advance. Perhaps it has been the reading of my speech that has produced the effect now revealed.
I also thank the hon. and learned Gentleman, in this mood of accommodation, for setting down Amendment No. 80. I fully agree with what he said about the clarity of it, the comparison between what he and his party propose in Amendment No. 80 and what we have written into the Bill. It clarifies the situation. The additions that we make are important for very good reasons.
Let us take first the insertion of the words "of employment", which would limit the kind of contract which will be affected. The hon. and learned Gentleman first warned me that I should not invoke the 1971 Act to my support by underlining that that Act, admittedly in different circumstances, extended the cover from contracts of employment to commercial contracts, and just because he says that I am not entitled to invoke it does not mean that there is no point in invoking it. I am not suggesting that I shall rest on that comparison, but it is not possible for the hon. and learned Gentleman to imagine that we are doing something so heinous that it must be denounced in the most medieval manner when in some respects we are doing what was done in the 1971 Act.
4.45 p.m.
The intention existed there to cover commercial contracts as well as contracts of employment. I recognise that that provision was governed by other provisions about the registration of trade unions, and by other factors, but it is no use the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that there is no point in extending the cover from contracts of employment to commercial contracts when the Conservatives took exactly that step for certain trade unions in their own Act.

Mr. Percival: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there is any comparison between giving this immunity to all and sundry without any limitation. as he does in the Bill, and giving it to registered unions who ex hypothesi in the 1971 Act had to undertake responsibilities and obligations, and also bearing in mind that that Act included protection for innocent third parties who might otherwise be hurt, the best of which section is set out in Amendment No. 81?

Mr. Foot: I am not saying the comparisons are complete by any means, and I think I made that clear already. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will permit me to develop my argument as I permitted him to develop his he will see the point. Why, therefore should the Conservatives have extended the cover in the 1971 Act from contracts of employment, as under the 1906 Act, to commercial contracts, even for registered unions? One of the reasons they may have done that, or why they may have been pushed in that direction, has some interest and relevance to our debate. Possibly they, too, had been reading the Donovan Report, and possibly they, too, had taken some account of the recommendations of Donovan on the subject.
The hon. and learned Gentleman talks of—I think his phrase was—an entirely different cup of tea—

Mr. Percival: That is a good legal phrase.

Mr. Foot: Indeed it is, and it is in the same category as his other legal phrase—"so what?". He introduces these brawling vulgarisms into our debate and we are compelled to follow along the same path. He says that this is an entirely different cup of tea, and that he has legal authority for saying so. He refers to the difference between contracts of employment and commercial contracts. If this is such an entirely different cup of tea I wonder why Donovan spent about three or four pages describing the obscurity of the situation saying that it should be cleared up, why, if it was so apparent to everyone, why if there was no obscurity, why if there was no problem to be solved, did Donovan suggest the removal of exactly the words which we have removed.
That is what Donovan did. I shall come later, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will permit me, to the quotation from Donovan. That covers many other aspects of the matter. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his most genial manner, talks of humbug on my part, but he must face the fact—and he failed to do so in Committee—that the wording in the clause is the wording that is recommended in the Donovan Report. What he has done is to remove the words which Donovan recommended should be inserted. I am sure that the

hon. and learned Gentleman will not deny that. Therefore, he must not tell the House with all his legal authority, and as if it must accept it, that the two matters are entirely different cups of tea. Donovan said that they are very much the same cup of tea, so much so that we must strain one from the other. It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman shaking his head. It is in the Donovan Report. I shall come in a moment to what Donovan said in another place.
First, let us be clear that there is a difference between what the hon. and learned Gentleman has in Amendment No. 80 and that Donovan recommended. Of course, it is not necessarily for dealing with exactly the same situation. The first reason for making a difference in the clause is that we have taken account of what Donovan said. That is not because we regard Donovan as the final authority on these matters but because of his argument that the law was obscure and that it should be made plain.
I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was not only Donovan that said that the law had to be made plain but all the other authorities that I cited in Committee, including the Bar Council. They all said, "Please clear up the matter." What the hon. and learned Gentleman and his party have done in the amendment is to ask the House to restore the obscurity which Donovan said should be removed. There is no escape from that proposition. I say to the Liberal Party, if by any chance it were to be misled—and it is extremely improbable that it should be so innocent in these matters—that if it were to believe that it would be following the 1906 precedent by doing what is proposed it would also be adopting the course of rejecting Donovan's recommendations. I dare say that other hon. Members may wish to intervene in the debate. I am trying to follow the same lines of argument that the hon. and learned Gentleman pursued.

Sir Raymond Gower: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. He will appreciate that it is possible to make the law clear in one of two alternative ways. There can be a direct interference with a form of contract and that would be a breach. That is clear. There can also he indirect interference. Therefore, the law can be


clarified either way. The right hon. Gentleman appears to suggest that the law can be clarified only in one way.

Mr. Foot: I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the clarification that we have introduced follows exactly along the lines recommended by Donovan. What the Conservative Party has done is to reject Donovan's recommendation. I underline this matter not because I am saying that Donovan is the final authority but because of the accusation which is made against the Government. I repeat that it cannot be such a scandalous and improper proposal that we are making when it follows exactly what Donovan recommended.
I know that there are other aspects of the argument, and I am not trying to escape from them. I shall not go ever all the arguments that led us to believe that it was necessary to change from a contract of employment only to commercial contracts as well. We rehearsed those arguments in Committee, and I could repeat them and elaborate them now. Partly they derive from the changes in the application of the law which have arisen between 1906 and 1971. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman says that by Amendment No. 80 he is restoring the position to 1906, but in view of the argument that we had in Committee—and there are plenty of cases to substantiate it—he would not be restoring the position to 1906, but trying to restore the position without taking into account the alterations which have arisen and the decisions that have been made in the courts which influence the way in which the law is interpreted. That also applies to the second objection which is taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman to what we have proposed in the clause.
The second difference between Amendment No. 80 and the clause, which the hon. and learned Gentleman underlined correctly, is covered by Amendments Nos. 71, 73 and 75. They relate to the other words that we have inserted in the clause—namely:
interferes or induces any other person to interfere with its performance …
As the hon. and learned Gentleman said in Committee, that is an addition which he thinks is extremely sinister, because it was not recommended by Donovan. He sometimes uses the argument both ways.

First, he would not accept the insertion of the original words because he said that Donovan does not matter. He then was much alarmed because we had introduced words not recommended by Donovan.
We are putting forward these matters on their own merits. I would have thought that even on the ground of common sense—if I may be so daring as to introduce such a note—the words are not so terrifying because if the greater action—that is, the breach—is to be protected it seems logical that the lesser action—namely interference with performance without a breach—should also be protected. As I read the words, that is their true meaning. It might be argued, "Why introduce them?" Once again, I could go through the cases in which we believe that there has been an alteration in the way in which the law has been interpreted. I know that I must be careful in the presence of the hon. and learned Gentleman in saying anything about the way in which the courts interpret the law. If I stray from the absolutely rigid path he will accuse me of accusing Her Majesty's judges of making the law on their own account. I understand how much that provokes him.
I must say that I sometimes read history as well as law. It is difficult to read about the history of our trade unions without coming to the conclusion that there have been alterations in the way in which the law operates because of the decisions that have taken place in the courts. Those changes have no doubt been made according to the way in which the judges think that changes should be made. It so happens that these words are introduced partly for those very reasons. The extension of immunity in this way is necessary because of the development of potential liability in tort by the courts. Stating the law as it was generally accepted to be in 1968, the Donovan Report stated that mere interference with another person's business by itself was not actionable. However, in the Court of Appeal, Lord Denning. in Torquay Hotels v. Cousins, in 1969, said:
the time has come when the principle"—
that is, the principle of inducement of breach of contract, a tort originated in the case of Lumley v. Gye in 1853—
should be further extended to cover deliberate and direct interference with the execution of a contract without that causing any breach.


It may be argued by some that in using those words—and I know that I must say this with the utmost delicacy—Lord Denning was propounding a new tort or something that comes very near it. In any case, the reference in the clause to interference with performance of a contract makes it clear that such action is protected.
5.0 p.m.
I return to the formulation in Section 3, the first limb, of the Trade Disputes Act 1906. Without such an amendment it would fail to recognise the way in which the courts have, since 1906, developed the tort of inducement and extended it to include the prevention of performance of a contract without a breach.
I do not quarrel with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he says that we are in a sense extending the position. I have never tried to conceal that. In the Consultative Document we said that we did not regard these extensions as of major importance, in the sense of changig the law fundamentally, because in practically every case we were seeking merely to rectify a situation which had arisen as a result of a court judgment, as the Labour Government did in 1965 after the Rookes v. Barnard case. With regard to some of the other cases we have thought it necessary, as we are reintroducing these immunities and protections, to ensure that they are brought up to date and that they deal with the modern legal position. Therefore, the new formulation in the Bill represents a modernisation of the 1906 formulation to maintain protection for tort liabilities not in contemplation at the time of the 1906 Act.
If the 1906 formulation is not modernised in this way, trade union activities, such as approaches to other persons, employers, firms and suppliers, warning them of impending strike action—which would clearly be interfering with the performance of a contract—would be made unlawful. If the Liberal Members were tempted to vote with the Conservatives on this matter, they would be assisting the Conservative Party to continue to take away from trade unions rights which they fully exercised for many years after 1906 but which have been denied them as a result of more recent developments.
I promise to come to the other Donovan interpretation, because I know that

the hon. and learned Gentleman sets great store on it. He would not like me to read the Donovan Report without saying what Lord Donovan said in the House of Lords. Before the hon. and learned Gentleman intervenes to read me that quotation for a fourth time, I promise him that we shall come to it.
First, I want to say a few words about the Liberal Amendment No. 64 and the Opposition Amendment No. 76. Subsection (3) is intended to clarify the position and, in effect, codify the line taken by the majority of judges. It represents another aspect of the modernisation of the traditional immunities. Indeed, it would be all the more necessary that Amendment No. 76 be carried if the Opposition were to succeed in their earlier amendments, but we need not expect that catastrophe to occur. Therefore, I do not urge the matter particularly on those grounds.
However, the subsections are important to forestall any possibility of circumvention by the courts of an argument that subsection (1)(a) would otherwise protect only a direct inducement of breach of a contract of employment or of a commercial contract. What we are doing is to clarify the law, to bring it up to date, to take account of changes that may have occurred. But none of these things need cause the great alarms in so many quarters of which we have heard.
The suggestions by some critics and commentators that a wide extension of trade union power derives from what we propose are not correct. We do not deny that it is an extension of the law as it appeared to be laid down in 1906, but we have taken into account the recommendations made by Donovan for clearing up the law, in our own view, as to what is to be done to clarify the law. What we are seeking to put on the statute book is a much clearer law.
I can hardly imagine such a somersault as there would be in the Liberal Party's choosing to oppose this. If politicians are to turn somesaults, they should do it fairly speedily, like the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). To turn a somersault over a period between 1906 and 1974 would be an extraordinarily athletic feat, and I do not recommend the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) to undertake it.


I hope that the Liberal Party will stand firmly behind the meaning, intention and effect of the 1906 Act, which is what we are seeking to do by our clause.
The hon. and learned Gentleman says that we must listen not to what Donovan said in his report, with the assistance of all the other distinguished gentlemen. but to what he said in the House of Lords, which was real evidence, unlike the mature judgments he reached in his report.

Mr. Percival: What we are saying is that if one wants to pay attention to what Donovan said in his report one must pay attention to the whole of it and not just a part. As an illustration of the importance of doing so, we drew attention to what he said personally in the quotation we are now going to hear for about the fourth time from the Government side of the House as well.

Mr. Foot: I shall not read the quotation. I do not mind reading it again, but I am sure that the House would be more interested in the refutation. It is true that Lord Donovan made those remarks. He did so in a speech criticising the Labour Government of that time for some proposals in the document, "In Place of Strife". I seem to have heard of that document in some of our discussions. Lord Donovan was critical of some of its proposals. He criticised the proposal that protection for inducing breach of commercial contract should be extended not only to trade unions but to any persons. It was largely as a result of that criticism that he developed the argument to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn attention.
At the hon. and learned Gentleman's invitation, I have given some study to Lord Donovan's speech. He was arguing against the three reasons which the then Labour Government had advanced for their proposals. I should like to deal with each of those proposals in turn, because they illustrate not merely the argument between us about what Lord Donovan did and did not say but the practicalities of the matter to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred.
The first reason the Labour Government of the day gave for the proposal was that experience showed that employers were normally unwilling to sue for breach of contract. Lord Donovan

criticised that on the grounds that it failed to distinguish between suing for breach of contract and suing for inducing a breach of contract. He pointed out that employers were in fact willing to sue for inducing breaches of contract.
I think that the answer to him was given by the Government at the end of the debate, when it was pointed out that all the cases he mentioned in this context involved injunctions against union officials in official strikes. In those circumstances the injunction was likely to be obeyed and to be effective. But the case of unofficial strikes was rather different. It might be possible to identify the ringleaders, but often they were not in a position to call off a strike.
As the Donovan Report showed, pressure for industrial action frequently came from below rather than from above. Moreover, in that sort of situation there was a danger that to pick out the alleged ringleaders might lead to an allegation of victimisation and thus make the dispute worse. That was the answer given at the time to the first of the reasons put forward by the Labour Government in defence of their proposals. It was a good answer then and it remains a good answer now.
The second reason given by the Labour Government at that time was that if protection extended only to trade unions, trade unions would have a rule that all strikes were official strikes unless otherwise declared. In that way immunity would be continued to be enjoyed by unofficial strike leaders. Donovan criticised this on the grounds that such a course was hardly likely to commend itself to many unions, and in any event the law could, if necessary be declared void. That was not a very convincing rebuttal. There was a distinct possibility that any restricted protection would be got round in the way suggested, and it would be difficult for the law to deal with this. That was the answer to the second point.
The third reason given by the Labour Government at that time for what they were doing was that even if provoked by the employer the unofficial strike leader could advance the defence of justification. Lord Donovan criticised that point on the ground that justification has always been a defence to an action for inducing a break of contract, although


he admitted that one could not say in advance what facts would amount to justification in any particular case. I think that Lord Donovan was being rightly cautious there, and that the Government point that a defence of justification would not be available was a good one. I understand that the justification defence has been accepted only once in the context of inducing breach of contract and that was in the famous case of Brimelow v. Casson in 1924. Apparently there is no other recorded case.
Therefore, it seems to me that restricting the protection to trade unions would leave an unofficial strike leader completely unprotected, even if an unreasonable and irresponsible employer provoked him into calling industrial action. An example might be where an employer had been repeatedly asked to put right some important safety matter but had not done so. Therefore if the debate to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn attention previously had been carefully studied by him he would have seen that it was not a one way argument that he was seeking to present to the Committee, and now to the House. I believe that on closer inspection Lord Donovan's arguments in that speech can be answered as I have answered them. Some of those arguments were fully answered at the time but I wish to emphasise that we do not base our claim to Clause 10 solely on what Donovan said in his report or at any other time. We are modernising the traditional 1906 immunity, which extended to persons. It was not restricted to trade unions, and this is one of the central features in the argument. Therefore, we do not think that a modernised version of the 1906 immunity should be restricted in the way Donovan suggested in the House of Lords but did not suggest in his report.
5.15 p.m.
I hope that whatever may be the course of argument which may proceed in this debate, it will be fully understood that all the Government are proposing in this important clause is the way in which trade unions are to have immunity—I do not use that word in the pejorative way the right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to use it—to exercise proper rights. We are concerned about trade unions' rights;

the Liberal Party should be concerned about them, too.
We are concerned about the rights which trade unions and trade unionists have exercised since 1906 in one way or another, but which were in many respects curtailed by the action of the courts over the last decade or so. Those rights should be properly restored. In restoring the rights we are not making a threat to the community; we are, indeed, enlarging the freedom of the individual. There were arguments yesterday about the individual. We are concerned about the way in which individual men and women are to band together to protect their rights. The clause is essential to the proper working of the Bill and, in the terms in which we have stated it, to the proper repeal of the 1971 Act.
If the Liberal Party, which voted on Second Reading for the Bill, wishes to be consistent it should support us now. We do not believe that anyone need be alarmed about what we are doing. The matter has been discussed and argued fully in the country and most of it was covered by what Donovan recommended.
I have dealt with the principal difference between what the Opposition propose and what we propose and I hope that on the basis of what I have said the House will be prepared to leave the Bill as it stands in order to achieve the purpose for which we voted on Second Reading.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As one who did not have the pleasure of hearing the Secretary of State in Committee on this subject, I am grateful that his position has now been explained to me before I take part in the debate. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would set my fears at rest regarding the serious nature of the change in the law which he is proposing in Clause 10, but he has done no such thing. To his credit, he has made no attempt to foster the illusion still prevailing outside the House that this part of the Bill is simply intended to restore us to the position as it was before 1971. The right hon. Gentleman has not used that argument. He has made clear that he is making a change in the law and extending privileges and immunities before the law beyond what they were before the Industrial Relations Act 1971.
The right hon. Gentleman has not done a service in minimising the seriousness of the nature of the change. He has used words like "clarifying" and "modernising", whereas this clause brings about a big change. In this respect the right hon. Gentleman has been wholly misleading and has been playing down the seriousness of what he is doing. I do not believe that he really regards this as such a minor and inconsequential change.
There were times when such changes in the law were not of great concern. Certainly until the 1960s, trade disputes in this country were never of a political nature. Those who conducted the disputes were very much part of the established trade union tradition, and there was no great fear of abuse of power. But now we are in a period in which people feel it is not the time for any Government to extend the immunities and privileges of selected groups of people before the law when they are engaged in trade disputes.
There is a serious difference between what the Secretary of State is now doing and what we did in 1971, and what is recommended in Donovan. It is not right to say that he is simply restoring rights to trade unions and trade unionists. It must be a fundamental feature of the clause that the immunities he proposes are being extended to people engaging in trade disputes, whether those people are members of a trade union, or are trade unionists, or are merely an ad hoc collection of people who, in certain circumstances, might not even be employees of any of the firms involved. They could come together for any industrial or political purpose and conduct a trade dispute.
This is a particularly important matter in present circumstances. I have in mind a body like the Ulster Workers' Council, which recently conducted a dispute in Northern Ireland. There could be an equivalent body, large or small, in other parts of the United Kingdom, and it would have immunities before the law extended to it on a larger scale than those which have been extended to any trade unions in the past.

Mr. Foot: If that is the hon. Gentleman's argument he must face the fact that he is seeking to remove an immunity which was there under the 1906 Act and which also referred to persons. He must

not carry the Liberal Party with him on the basis that it would be extending the 1906 Act when, in fact, it would be going back into the 19th century.

Mr. Clarke: The 1906 Act immunity was restricted to contracts of employment. The Secretary of State is giving blanket immunity to break contracts or induce breaches of contracts of any commercial kind. He cannot make that sort of intervention, suggesting that we are returning to the 1906 position. This measure gives to groups of people a potential right to break contracts, to picket or take other action to induce others to break contracts over a wide area. It affects contracts with persons or countries to whom others objected. The measure enables persons to obstruct purchases by a company or to interfere with contracts for the repair and supply of component parts.
To say that this is what the Liberal Government intended in 1906 that ad hoc bodies of people could object to a firm's supplying goods to a certain country, or to some feature of the firm's financial policy and gain total legal immunity—is to misrepresent the position. The Secretary of State is giving people the power to break contracts and to induce others to do so—to interfere with the business activity of a firm over a wide range. The suggestion that he is putting us to back to where we were before 1971 is entirely inaccurate.
Given that this is what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do, he ought to have given us some examples of the kind of circumstances he envisages arising. What are the kinds of disputes he sees being covered by this provision? To say that it covers a situation when an employer might have provoked an unofficial dispute by failing to deal with some safety measure is to give the mildest example. What about some extreme political body engaging in a trade dispute with a firm because it objects to the country of origin of some component parts supplied to the firm or because it objects to the countries to which products are going? Are they to be protected by this clause? We have had no indication of the circumstances which, given today's climate, could arise. The most unlikely bodies, far removed from traditional trade unions and trade unionists, could indulge in


widespread industrial activity. The right hon. Gentleman could be legalising wrecking activity on a scale we have not so far seen in the commercial life of this country, in a way that could never have been contemplated in the past.
The right hon. Gentleman's Bill goes well beyond emergency legislation putting the clock back while this political issue is resolved, an election held and a majority Government comes forward with fresh proposals. The Secretary of State is trying to make a serious change in the law bearing upon the fundamental issue facing us all, affecting the issue of what are the legitimate interests and rights of trade unionists on the one hand and of individual employees and firms on the other. He is altering the balance very much indeed, potentially in favour of most unlikely groups who ought not to be placed in any privileged position before the law. On that basis I feel that his attempts to minimise what he is doing are quite inappropriate. I hope that we will press this amendment and try to get back to some more sensible proposition.

Mr. Cyril Smith: The first thing I must do is to make it clear that I was not a member of the 1906 Government. I am a bit worried about the wooing of the Liberal Party that has gone on from both Front Benches this afternoon. I find it intriguing and almost embarrassing. I began to wonder, i in the middle of the Minister's speech, whether he was appealing for a coalition on this and other matters. Can it be that the Government have suddenly found, now that the Scottish Nationalists have gone off home rather early, that the votes of the Liberals are a little more important today than they were yesterday?
If the right hon. Gentleman had been as willing or as forceful in wooing the Liberals when they were attempting to introduce clauses which would have covered the position of individuals I would find his wooing today more persuasive and would be more willing to respond to it. It seems that his wooing is evident only when individuals are acting collectively as a trade union. It is not nearly so effective or forceful when we argue in favour of the individual acting as an individual. I regret to say that I find his argument not entirely as

impressive as he would, no doubt, wish it to be.
The Liberals, and, I hope, the official Opposition, recognise and would wish to protect the right of a man to strike. I believe that any man has the right to withdraw his labour. We are not so much concerned here with that as with the situation which arises when a trade union, having withdrawn labour, seeks to involve a third party in the dispute. The issue is whether in those circumstances the immunity should apply. Should trade unionists in a strike situation have the right to be immune in law if they involve that third party who has nothing to do with the dispute?
We do not say that a union cannot involve such people. Even if the amendments were carried, all they would mean would be, that a union would not be immune in law. It seems reasonable that one of the amendments should be carried. There is a limit to how far the House can be expected, by this Bill, to protect the trade union movement but not to protect anyone else. There is a limit to how far we can be pushed along that road.
It was evident in Committee and yesterday that if we attempt to move an amendment protecting the individual we are told "There is a lot in what the hon. Member says, but perhaps he could wait till we introduce the Bill dealing with the rights of employees; we will cover that then." However, when it comes to protecting trade unions or extending the immunity granted to the trade union movement—which the Minister has conceded this clause does—then action can be taken now; it does not have to wait till later.
I am sorry to disappoint the Secretary of State. Unless he makes some concession and accepts Amendment No. 76 or Amendment No. 64 I would feel bound to advise my colleagues to support the Opposition. While I want to protect the right of a man to strike I cannot be pushed too far along this road of constantly extending the immunity granted to the trade union movement. There must be concessions granted in return.

Sir Raymond Gower: What the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) has said is much more consistent with the tradition of Liberalism than what was suggested by the Secretary of State. It is


ridiculous for the right hon. Gentleman to attempt to compare conditions today with those of 60 or 70 years ago. He is harking back to the situation that obtained in 1908 and is seeking to say that we should make the same sort of judgments today as were made then. There is a fair case for saying that in those days far too many ordinary members of trade unions did not have a fair deal under Conservative and Liberal Governments alike. It is fatuous now to hark back to those days and seek to compare them with conditions today.
The Opposition and the Liberals would be collectively failing in their duty if they did not oppose this dangerous extension. None of us wants to restrict the right of a person to withhold his labour. The right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that we are having a party battle over the rights of a person to withhold his labour, although he well knows that is not so.
5.30 p.m.
As a Minister, in the economic circumstances of today the right hon. Gentleman should be concerned not only about advancing the privileges of groups but about the future economic salvation of the country. He must know that for a long time, under Labour and Conservative Governments, we have been living on a knife edge. We have a highly sophisticated pattern of industry. We have sub-contractors to the main contractors in the motor industry and other great industries, and this extension might lead to untold damage to industrial relations and to our whole economic performance. As a member of a Government which inherited great economic difficulties, as have successive Governments, the right hon. Gentleman's concern should be to strike a balance. Each individual has an undoubted right to withhold his labour. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to extend that right to people who enter into innocent commercial contracts and who may be offended by the extension.
I fear that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have not considered all the implications of what they propose. They may have read Donovan and many other documents carefully, but they do not seem to understand that our highly susceptible economy cannot stand lockouts and strikes beyond those which are unavoidable. Our trouble is not that too

many people have been prevented from withholding their labour; our trouble is that we have been too disposed to bring our economic activities to a halt for inadequate reasons.
The amendment seeks to prevent a dangerous extension of certain privileges and I hope that my hon. Friends will support it.

Mr. James Prior: I find the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, in his quieter and more reflective moods this afternoon and yesterday, much more beguiling than I did in Committee. There, he appeared always to be good-humoured but rather bombastic. I wonder what accounts for his sudden change of mood within the last few days. It makes these debates much more agreeable to us.
When the right hon. Gentleman speaks ad lib I understand exactly what he is saying. When he reads from his brief I am never certain whether he is quoting someone else or whether he quite understands what he is saying. I have the good manners not to interrupt him and ask, although I probably should not be much wiser if I did.
Our amendments are designed to restore the position on the immunity of trade unions to that which obtained in 1971. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman one might think that we were dealing with a downtrodden and underprivileged section of society called the trade union movement. That was the position in 1906, and it was precisely because the trade unions and organised labour were so weak that the 1906 Act was passed. It was considered that the unions must have the extra protection afforded by the immunities from the ordinary effect of the law. No one could seriously argue that that situation pertains today. One might argue strongly that, far from the law of immunities needing to be widened. it needs to be considerably narrowed.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted paragraph 889 of the Donovan Report, which speaks of the law being far from clear. If he reads on—as he undoubtedly did when he prepared his speech—he will find that paragraph 894 is in these terms:
the protection of any extension of Section 3 should … be restricted to those bodies which will be trade unions under the suggested new arrangements for incorporation and registration. They do not think it should apply to temporary combinations.


In quoting Donovan in his favour, the right hon. Gentleman should refer to what is said a little later.
For the benefit of some of my hon. Friends who may have missed it, I shall quote what Mr. Campbell Adamson has to say about the clause. No one would accuse Mr. Adamson of leaning over backwards to put a Conservative point of view, but this is what he said in a letter to The Times of 11th June:
If the Bill is passed as at present drafted, unions, officials and shop stewards will be free in law to strike or indulge in other industrial action, or to ' black ', blockade or boycott, or threaten to do so, whenever they like, officially or unofficially, constitutionally or in breach of procedure, in respect of a trade dispute anywhere in Great Britain or in the rest of the world. Secondly, it will be lawful to use the picket line for the purpose of establishing boycotts or blockades, whether against an employer in dispute or against employers, companies, public corporations or any other bodies which have nothing to do with the dispute in question.
That is the effect of what the right hon. Gentleman says is no change from the pre-1971 position but just a little tidying up of the 1906 position. He justified that in Committee by saying some rather unpleasant things about the judges. He said:
I am sorry to say that the history of the law governing trade disputes in this country is one of constant encroachment by the courts on the rights of unions and others engaging in strike activities. Some say that judges have shown great ingenuity, or perhaps resourcefulness is a more vapid word to use. The judges have been resourceful over the years in trying to ensure that the law was clarified in a way which suited them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 18th June 1974; c. 481.]
I have never heard such arrant nonsense as that from the right hon. Gentleman.
We know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do. He is not

Division No. 74]
AYES
[5.39 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher


Aitken, Jonathan
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Benyon, W.
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Berry, Hon. Anthony
Bryan, Sir Paul


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Biffen, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Ancram, M.
Biggs-Davison, John
Buck, Antony


Archer, Jeffrey
Blaker, Peter
Budgen, Nick


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Bulmer, Esmond


Awdry, Daniel
Body, Richard
Burden, F. A.


Baker, Kenneth
Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Carlisle, Mark


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Banks, Robert
Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Braine, Sir Bernard
Channon, Paul


Beith, A. J.
Bray, Ronald
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Bell, Ronald
Brittan, Leon
Churchill, W. S.

merely trying to put the law back to the 1971 position; he is extending the immunities a good deal further, because that is what the trade union movement has told him to do. If he cannot tell the House that, he is perfectly prepared to tell the readers of Tribune. In a recent article in Tribune he told his readers that he was out to restore the full vigour and strength of the working people combined for action. That is his position, and it would be better if he admitted it freely to the House instead of saying that he is not making any major changes.

The nation as a whole has an interest in the least possible disruption of production by disputes. Individuals have an interest in the stability and orderly growth of their earnings. Neither of those interests is adequately reflected in the Bill. The amendment is designed to ensure a clear choice between a policy for industrial relations which is designed to hold the balance in the interests both of the individual and the community as a whole, and the Government's policy of giving trade unions a measure of power against both the individual and the community, which cannot in the long run be in the interests of any of those concerned. The House has the opportunity to make that choice today on the amendment.

I agree with what the hon. Member for Rochdale said. The Secretary of State for Employment is far too concerned to protect and to enlarge the great power of the trade unions, and gives far too little attention to the protection of the rights of the individual against those powers. I hope that we shall reject what the right hon. Gentleman said and pass the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 287.

Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Raison, Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John
Rathbone, Tim


Cockcroft, John
Hurd, Douglas
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Redmond, Robert


Cope, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cordle, John
James, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't' gd' ns' re)


Cormack, Patrick
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std &amp; W'fd)
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)


Corrie, John
Jessel, Toby
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dixon, Piers
Kimball, Marcus
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sainsbury, Tim


Drayson, Burnaby
Kitson, Sir Timothy
St. John-Stevas, Norman


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Durant, Tony
Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Dykes, Hugh
Lemont, Norman
Shelton, William (L'mb't, Streath'm)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Lane, David
Shersby, Michael


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Silvester, Fred


Elliott, Sir William
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sims, Roger


Eyre, Reginald
Lawrence, Ivan
Sinclair, Sir George


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Farr, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fell, Anthony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'm'ngton)


Fanner, Mrs. Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)
Spence, John


Fidler, Michael
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacArthur, Ian
Sproat, Iain


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
McCrindle, R. A.
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macfarlane, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John
Stanley, John


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
McLaren, Martin
Steel, David


Fox, Marcus
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Freud, Clement
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


Fry, Peter
Madel, David
Stokes, John


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Maude, Angus
Taverne, Dick


Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)


Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' &amp; Amsh'm)
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tebbit, Norman


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
Mayhew. Patrick (RoyalT' bridge Wells)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)


Goodlad, A.
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Gorst, John
Mills, Peter
Townsend, C. D.


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miscampbell, Norman
Trotter, Neville


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Moate, Roger
Tyler, Paul


Gray, Hamish
Money, Ernie
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Viggers, Peter


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morgan, Geraint
Waddington, David


Grist, Ian
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Grylls, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton,[...]
Wakeham, John


Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)



Morrison. Peter (City of Chester)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hall, Sir John
Mudd, David
Wall, Patrick


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey
Walters, Dennis


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neubert, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Weatherill, Bernard


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wells, John


Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss
Nott, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley
Wiggin, Jerry


Havers, Sir Michael
Oppenhelm, Mrs. Sally
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Kayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pardoe, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Henderson, J. S. B.(Dunbartonshire, E.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Heseltine, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Higgins. Terence
Percival, Ian



Holland, Philip
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey(Surrey, E.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Adam Butler


Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, Rt. Hn. James

NOES


Abse, Leo
Faulds, Andrew
McElhone, Frank


Allaun, Frank
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Archer, Peter
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McGuire, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Ashley, Jack
Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Atkins, Ronald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Madden, M. O. F.


Atkinson, Norman
Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Magee, Bryan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ford, Ben
Mahon, Simon


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Marks, Kenneth


Bates, Alf
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Marquand, David


Baxter, William
Freeson, Reginald
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Galpern, Sir Myer
Meacher, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mendelson, John


Bishop, E. S.
George, Bruce
Mikardo, Ian


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)


Boardman, H.
Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Booth, Albert
Golding, John
Molloy, William


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gourlay, Harry
Moonman, Eric


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Graham, Ted
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bradley, Tom
Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Morris. Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Moyle, Roland


Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Murray, Ronald King


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'dltch)
Hamling, William
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)


Buchan, Norman
Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Gordon


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn
Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James (Cardiff, S.E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Malley, Brian


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Hatton, Frank
Orbach, Maurice


Campbell, Ian
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Ovenden, John


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Dr. David


Carmichael, Neil
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)
Padley, Walter


Carter, Ray
Hooley, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Horam, John
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Clemitson, Ivor
Huckfield, Leslie
Parry, Robert


Cocks, Michael
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pendry, Tom


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Perry, Ernest G.


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Phipps, Dr. Colin


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Prescott, John


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I. EdgeHl)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Colin
Radice, Giles


Cronin, John
Janner, Greville
Reid, George


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cryer, G. R.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, G.(Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rose, Paul B.


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Kelley, Richard
Rowlands, Edward


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell
Sandelson, Neville


Delargy, Hugh
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sedgemore, Bryan


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Selby, Harry


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamborn, Harry
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney &amp; P'plar)


Dunn, James A.
Latham, Arthur(City of W'minster P'ton)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Dunnett, Jack
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)


Edelman, Maurice
Lee, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)


Edge, Geoff
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sillars, James


Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silverman, Julius


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Skinner, Dennis


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Ennals, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Snape, Peter


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loughlin, Charles
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Loyden, Eddie
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, John (Newton)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stallard, A. W.


Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
McCartney, Hugh
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)



MacCormack, Iain
Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge)


Stott, Roger
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Strang, Gavin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Watkins, David
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Swain, Thomas
Watt, Hamish
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)
Weitzman, David
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)
Wellbeloved, James
Woodall, Alec


Tierney, Sydney
White, James
Woof, Robert


Tinn, James
Whitehead, Phillip
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Tomlinson, John
Whitlock, William
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Tomney, Frank
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Torney, Tom
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mr. J. D. Dormand and


Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)
Mr. Thomas Cox

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 64, in page 9, leave out lines 29 and 30.—[Mr. Cyril Smith.]

Division No. 75.]
AYES
[5.56 p.m.


Adley, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Heath. Rt. Hn. Edward


Aitken, Jonathan
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Henderson. J.S.B.(Dunbartonshire. E.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Heseltine. Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead
Dixon, Piers
Higgins, Terence


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Holland, Philip


Ancram, M.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir' Alec
Hordern, Peter


Archer, Jeffrey
Drayson, Burnaby
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey(Surrey, E.)


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Howell, David (Guildford)


Awdry, Daniel
Durant, Tony
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)


Baker, Kenneth
Dykes, Hugh
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hunt, John


Banks, Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hurd, Douglas


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Elliott, Sir William
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Beith, A. J.
Emery, Peter
Iremonger, T. L.


Bell, Ronald
Eyre, Reginald
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fairgrieve, Russell
James, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Farr, John
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std &amp; W'fd)


Benyon, W.
Fell, Anthony
Jessel, Toby


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Biffen, John
Fidler, Michael
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Biggs-Davison, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Blaker, Peter
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Jopling, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S.)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Body, Richard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kershaw, Anthony


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
Kimball, Marcus


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Fox, Marcus
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bray, Ronald
Freud. Clement
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Brittan, Leon
Fry, Peter
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Knox, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
Lamont, Norman


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Lane, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Buchanan-Smith, Allck
Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' &amp; Amsh'm)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Buck, Antony
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lawrence, Ivan


Budgen, Nick
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodhart, Philip
Le Marchant, Spencer


Burden, F. A.
Goodhew, Victor
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Goodlad, A.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)


Carlisle, Mark
Gorst, John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Loveridge, John


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
MacArthur, Ian


Channon, Paul
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McCrindle, R. A.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gray, Hamish
Macfarlane, Neil


Churchill, W. S.
Grieve, Percy
MacGregor, John


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McLaren, Martin


Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grist, Ian
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Clegg, Walter
Grylls, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Cockcroft, John
Gurden, Harold
Madel, David


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Hall, Sir John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cope, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol


Cordle, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus


Cormack, Patrick
Hannam, John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Corrie, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray


Costain, A. P.
Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Crouch, David
Hastings, Stephen
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)


Crowder, F. P.
Havers, Sir Michael
Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT' bridge Wells)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony



Hayhoe, Barney
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)

Question put, That the amendment be made—:

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 290.

Mills, Peter
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
Taylor, Edward M. (Gigow, C'cart)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridsdale, Julian
Tebbit, Norman


Moate, Roger
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Money, Ernie
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Monro, Hector
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)


Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Morgan, Geraint
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Townsend, C. D.


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Trotter, Neville


Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Tyler, Paul


Morrison. Peter (City of Chester)
Sainsbury, Tim
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mudd, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Neave, Airey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Waddington, David


Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Nicholls, Sir Harmer
Shersby, Michael
Wakeham, John


Nott, John
Silvester, Fred
Walder. David (Clitheroe)


Onslow, Cranley
Sims, Roger
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sinclair, Sir George
Wall, Patrick


Osborn, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walters, Dennis


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Warren, Kenneth


Pardoe, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'm'ngton)
Weatherill, Bernard


Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)
Spence, John
Wells, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Percival, Ian
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas


Pink, R. Bonner
Stainton, Keith
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Prior, Rt. Hn. James
Stanley, John
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Raison, Timothy
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)



Rathbone, Tim
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stokes, John
Mr. David Steel and


Redmond, Robert
Stradling Thomas, John
Dr. Michael Winstanely.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tapsell, Peter



Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)
Taverne, Dick





NOES


Abse, Leo
Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael


Allaun, Frank
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Ford, Ben


Archer, Peter
Crawshaw, Richard
Forrester, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Cronin, John
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)


Ashley, Jack
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, G. R.
Freeson, Reginald


Atkins, Ronald
Cunningham, G.(Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Atkinson, Norman
Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Dalyell, Tam
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davidson, Arthur
George, Bruce


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Bates, Alf
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Ginsburg, David


Baxter, William
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Golding, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Gourlay, Harry


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Deakins, Eric
Graham, Ted


Bidwell, Sydney
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bishop, E. S.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Grant, John (Islington, C.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Delargy, Hugh
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)


Boardman, H.
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Booth, Albert
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Doig, Peter
Hamling, William


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hardy, Peter


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Harper, Joseph


Bradley, Tom
Dunn, James A.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dunnett, Jack
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Hatton, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Edelman, Maurice
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Ronald (H'kney.S.&amp;Sh'ditch)
Edge, Geoff
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Hooley, Frank


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow.Springb'rn
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Horam, John


Butler, Mrs.Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)


Callaghan. Rt. Hn. James (Cardiff, S.E.)
English, Michael
Huckfield, Leslie


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Ennals, David
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Campbell, Ian
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cant, R. B.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, John (Newton)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carter, Ray
Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)
Hunter, Adam


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ewing, Mrs.Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, EdgeHI)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Faulds, Andrew
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)


Clemitson, Ivor
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jackson, Colin


Cocks, Michael
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Janner, Greville


Cohen, Stanley
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Coleman, Donald
Flannery, Martin
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N,
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)


Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)




John, Brynmor

Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W)
Morris Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Snape, Peter


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Moyle, Roland
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Murray, Ronald King
Stallard, A. W.


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Oakes, Gordon
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


Judd, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Kelley. Richard
O'Halloran, Michael
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Kerr, Russell
O'Malley, Brian
Stott, Roger


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Orbach, Maurice
Strang, Gavin


Kinnock, Neil
Ovenden, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lambie, David
Owen, Dr. David
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lamborn, Harry
Padley, Walter
Swain, Thomas


Lamond, James
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P'ton)
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Parry, Robert
Tierney, Sydney


Lee, John
Pavitt, Laurie
Tinn, James


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Pendry, Tom
Tomlinson, John


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Perry, Ernest G.
Tomney, Frank


Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Phipps, Dr. Colin
Torney, Tom


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prescott, John
Tuck, Raphael


Lipton, Marcus
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Urwin, T. W.


Lomas, Kenneth
Price, William (Rugby)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Loughlin, Charles
Radice, Giles
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Loyden, Eddie
Reid, George
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, David


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Watt, Hamish


MacCormack, Iain
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Weitzman, David


McElhone, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Wellbeloved, James


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
White, James


McGuire, Michael
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mackenzie, Gregor
Rooker, J. W.
Whitlock, William


Maclennan, Robert
Roper, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Madden, M. O. F.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Magee, Bryan
Rowlands, Edward
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge)


Mahon, Simon
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sedgemore, Bryan
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Marks, Kenneth
Selby, Harry
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Marquand, David
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Meacher, Michael
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&amp;P'plar)
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Woodall, Alec


Mendelson, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)
Woof, Robert


Mikardo, Ian
Silkln, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Sillars, James



Molloy, William
Silverman, Julius
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Moonman, Eric
Skinner, Dennis



Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Small, William
Mr. J. D. Dormand and


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Mr. Thomas Cox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: I beg to move Amendment No. 81, in page 9, line 38, at end add:
'( ) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any act done by a person if at the time of doing the act—
(a) he knows or has reasonable grounds for believing that another person has entered into a contract with a person whether or not that other person is a party to the trade dispute;
(b) his purpose or principal purpose in taking or threatening to take those steps is knowingly to induce that other person to break that contract or to prevent him from performing it; and
(c) that other person is an extraneous party in relation to the trade dispute.
( ) For the purposes of this section a person shall be regarded as an extraneous party in relation to the trade dispute if
(a) he is not a party to that dispute, and

(b) he has not, in contemplation or furtherance of that dispute, taken any action in material support of a party to it.
( ) A person shall not be regarded for the purposes of this section as a party to a trade dispute or as having taken action as mentioned in subsection ( )(b) of this section by reason only that he—
(a) is an associated employer in relation to an employer who is a party to the trade dispute, or
(b) is a member of an organisation of employers of which a party to the trade dispute is also a member, or
(c) has contributed to a fund which may be available to such a party by way of relief in respect of losses incurred or to be incurred in consequence of the dispute, where the fund was established, and his contribution to it was paid, without specific reference to that trade dispute, or
(d) supplies goods to, or provides services for, a party to the trade dispute in pursuance of a contract entered into before the trade


dispute began, or is a party to such a contract under which he is or may be required to supply goods to, or provide services for, a party to the trade dispute '.
This amendment would limit the immunity of either of the parties or a single party taking industrial action in a trade dispute. It closely resembles Section 98 of the 1971 Act.
As drafted, the Bill affords immunity on a much wider basis, as became abundantly clear during the debate on Amendment No. 80 and the associated group of amendments. The quotation which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) made from Mr. Campbell Adamson's letter in The Times made that only too clear. Indeed, there has never been a ministerial denial that the stated range of immunities set out in that letter did not represent the effect of the present Bill.
This widening of the area of immunity becomes all the more important now that society has become so dependent on certain crucial industries or services. For example, we have seen how vital the power stations are to the life of the nation. During the miners' dispute in 1972, the oil-fired power stations were picketed, but they were in no way involved in the dispute. Nevertheless, the miners were able to establish effective pickets over the oil-fired power stations and exert a pressure upon the community.
The amendment would help to remove immunity from action of that kind. When one sees how dependent the nation is on services such as the power stations, one wonders which workers in future may follow this example and attempt to have their own dispute resolved in their favour by operating in a similar way upon the jugular vein of our society, the power stations. Will ASLEF, in pursuit of a claim by the engine drivers, do this? Could other unions or groups seek to use the power station lever? I have no doubt that there are other equally powerful levers within society which, if used, could exert very powerful pressure on the resolution of a dispute.
We believe that some limits are needed because as Clause 10 now stands no limits of any kind are set upon the immunities available to those who are involved in action in pursuit or furtherance of an industrial dispute.
Can the Secretary of State or the Minister of State at this late stage do what they did not do during the Committee stage and show that there are some limits? Will they acknowledge this openly? The Secretary of State began to move in this direction in his contribution to the previous debate when he made it clear that there was a substantial extension of immunities involved in Clause 10. If that is the position—there is no doubt in my mind that it is so—what is the justification for it?
In a rather specious manner the Secretary of State tried to call in aid the Donovan Report during the earlier debate when speaking of the deletion of the words "of employment". That is only part of the story. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the whole of the Donovan Report, and particularly paragraph 894 referred to by my right hon. Friend, he will see that it is clear that he, the Secretary of State, was misrepresenting the Donovan argument. He may have been using Donovan's words, but the message was pure Wedderburn. It was a misrepresentation of Donovan.
The clause seeks to make lawful action against innocent third parties who have no connection with the dispute. What do we see? Yesterday we saw the Government with a majority of one—a pretty suspect majority of one at that—upholding its view that the rights and privileges of the strong unions had to be sustained while the safeguards and protections for the individual were being demolished, albeit only for a time, and the individual left defenceless.
What is today's message from the Treasury Bench? It is that the Secretary of State is defending the principle of the use of the innocent hostage—chosen at random and without blame; someone who has no connection with the dispute—and using pressure on that person to get at the community at large. This is the rôle of the terrorist dealing with hostages. What is the distinction in principle between selecting an innocent bystander, who is used to bring pressure for some purpose, and doing what the clause allows to be done in the name of industrial action when people are involved who have no connection with the dispute?
As we seen it, the message from this minority Labour Government is an invitation to take industrial action against third parties—whether they be vital services or essential industries or the vulnerable and innocent—in order to achieve an industrial end often in the interests of the strong. How revealing was the comment of the Secretary of State, as he moved to his peroration, when he said that his concern was with trade union rights—not the community interests, but trade union rights. Surely if the clause goes through unamended and unchanged he will be pursuing what he says is his objective of merely being concerned about trade union rights.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I have never in any circumstances said that I was merely and solely concerned with trade union rights. Certainly I said that I was concerned with trade union rights. There is no apology to be made on that account. I never in any circumstances said that I was solely concerned with trade union rights. I am concerned because trade union rights in my opinion form an essential part of a civilised community.

Mr. Hayhoe: One accepts what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I think he has got the balance entirely wrong in that he gives pre-eminence to his pursuit of what he described as essential trade union rights over the general interests of the community and, as we saw yesterday, over safeguards for the individual.
If one can quote the source of inspiration so apparent in the Bill—Professor Wedderburn—he in some ways provided, in his letter to The Times of 12th June, a solution to this argument because he made it clear in a very revealing paragraph, which he put in italics, halfway through his letter that the protection provided by the law should be restricted to those
acting in furtherance or contemplation of their trade dispute"—
in furtherance not of "a" trade dispute but of "their" trade dispute, one in which they are involved. Our amendment would achieve just that.
It is for those reasons and with the support of Professor Wedderburn, at least if he meant what he said in that passage

of his letter to The Times, that I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. John Peyton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) on the lucidity with which he moved the amendment and in particular upon the fact that he elicited from the Secretary of State clarification of his position on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said he considered trade union rights fundamental in a democratic community. I do not think anyone would complain about that or challenge it. What we all notice and what distresses us is that there is no mention—or only very rarely is the subject allowed to occur—of any reflected or accompanying obligation.
The trade union movement has enormous rights conferred upon it. The Government say that they are concerned to safeguard these rights and see that they are well founded in law, but very little attention is given by the Government to the accompanying obligation to the community as a whole, and particularly to the individual. There can be no doubt that all Members on the Opposition side consider that the immunity goes too far. It is a screen behind which any tort can be committed as long as there is in existence a more or less relevant industrial dispute. I submit that this leaves the individual in a hopeless position.
My hon. Friend said that once he gets caught up in one of these fearful power struggles the individual, who finds it difficult enough to manage a business, will find himself squeezed into a corner by a giant. There will be no escape for him from the pressures that can be put upon him.
I am certain that the General Council of the TUC would be the very first to regret any abuse of the enormous privileges here conferred upon the trade union movement. I am equally certain that it will have no power whatever to control its own members in detail in action taken in the field in circumstances sometimes of bad temper and of strong feeling. I have always felt that the whole of the Bill suffered from the fact that the Government, acting under instructions, had got the whole thing lopsided. They are giving the trade union movement powers which it could do without and they are denying it powers, which it


badly needs, to give trade union leaders real power over their members, which they badly lack at present.
I echo what has been said by my hon Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth—namely, that society has become far more vulnerable. There are certain nodal points at which, if pressure is brought to bear, society faces the most odious of all purposes. The previous administration, of which I was a member, certainly learned this lesson in its bitter depths. Once pressure is exerted upon the power stations, directly or indirectly, and once pressure is exerted on fresh water supplies or the movement of sewage, civilised life comes to a halt.
It was not always so. This has happened only over the past 20 or 30 years. As recently as the time of the last war, fresh water and sewage were moved by all kinds of agencies. Today the one source of movement of fresh water is electricity. Therefore, any threat to electricity is a threat to the life of the community. If that threat is pushed through, it carries with it a possibility of damage to the community which may well be irreparable and would inflict tremendous damage on not just one or two isolated industries but everyone in this country, including millions of trade unionists, There would be devastation from which it is very hard to see a recovery.
In this place every now and again one hears a bit of hyperbole being engaged in, but it is exceedingly hard to exaggerate the effect upon the community if things got really out of hand and pressures were exerted which could not be restrained and action were taken which denied to the community those things upon which its very life depended. The alternative is that Governments give way.
I hope the Secretary of State appreciates that in taking away the rights of the individual, as he is doing in the Bill, he is increasing the possibility of that state of affairs coming to pass. I wonder whether we in this House reflect often enough upon the real weakness of government. We are very much over-impressed by its trappings and by the fact that it has all gone on for a rather long time, but only too seldom do we face—and then, perhaps, for only a disagreeable period when we cannot escape from it—the bitter question of where power has got

to. Only too often the answer to that question is that it has got into the hands of someone who is near to a switch or a tap which controls vital supplies and that people in that position might not be immediately responsive to the instructions or the advice of responsible trade union leaders—far from it.
I want to ask the Secretary of State two questions. First, to what extent does he believe that the ordinary citizen is remotely aware of what he is doing today? Second, what kind of mandate can he claim for this measure by a Government who do not have a majority at all?
I can hear echoes of the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman over all the years that I have been in Parliament. I can see him standing, very rightly, for the rights and liberties of the individual and, because of those rights and liberties, the rights of Parliament. But here is Parliament behaving in a craven way and betraying the individual whose rights we should be safeguarding. This is a real case of were I Brutus and Brutus Antony, what would I then say to the right hon. Gentleman? If he were standing here today and some such thing were being proposed by some limp, feeble orator like me, I should be crushed by the venom and invective which he would unleash on behalf of one of his favourite causes—the individual, the rights of Parliament and a free society. The right hon. Gentleman is today dealing them an almost lethal blow.

Sir Raymond Gower: My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has not overstated this matter. The Secretary of State laughs at that remark. He was quite right—no one on the Opposition side of the House would dissent from the correctness of his statement—when he expressed profound concern for the rights of trade unions. We are all attached to the right to withhold labour, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing not merely the right to withhold labour in a trade dispute in a particular industry or service but how far the frontiers of that right should extend beyond a particular dispute. The Bill as drafted does not circumscribe that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said, we want to see a position in which


there will be a limit to the immunity which people who engage in these disputes may enjoy. I hope that the Secretary of State and his colleagues will realise what they may be doing. It may be that a future Labour Government will be embarrassed by it.
Again there is laughter on the Government Front Bench. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that a post-war Government in Australia were destroyed in the late 1940s. I think that it was the Chiffley Government. They were completely destroyed by the excesses of trade unions in Australia which they had no legislative power to control. If the Government do not preserve some limits to this kind of immunity, a future Labour Government may be destroyed in the same way.
I am convinced that in the next decade a Government of some colour or combination of parties will have to legislate to make some limit to these immunities. Our society's economic arrangements are such that those who are completely unconnected with the immediate factors in a dispute can hold the country to ransom. I am certain that we Conservatives have the Liberals on our side in this matter. I hope that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) will be able to confirm that. This is just as much a Liberal cause as was the fight for individuals by Liberals in the last century.
But the wheel has gone round too far. I admit that the big power was too much on one side a few decades ago. Then it was the small man, the individual or the trade unionist, by seeking a combination, who was seeking strength—and not without reason. But the wheel has now gone right round and there is probably a majority of people in Britain who have not perhaps made up their minds but who are extremely apprehensive about the trends revealed by the Government's attitude today.
I hope that the Government will think again. I should like them to accept the amendment. If they do not, I hope that we shall divide upon it and that there will be a majority in favour of it.

6.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The effect of the amendment would be to remove the protection for acts in con

templation or furtherance of a trade dispute or industrial action against third parties. As the hon. Member for Brent-ford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) has fairly pointed out, it is basically an attempt to re-enact Section 98 of the 1971 Act. I therefore have a simple question to put to the House, which should be answered before we decide whether to attempt, albeit in a form more appropriate to this Bill, to re-enact Section 98 of the 1971 Act.
The question stems not from my consideration of the position but from the consideration put to the House by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth. He said a few moments ago that in the recent miners' dispute members of the National Union of Mineworkers picketed power stations, which was a very serious matter. It was certainly a case of trade unionists acting against a third party. The Central Electricity Generating Board was not involved in that dispute. The hon. Gentleman asked how the Bill would operate in those circumstances. I put it to the hon. Gentleman: how did the 1971 Act, embracing as it does Section 98, operate in those circumstances? Did it stop miners picketing the power stations? Did it result in the Central Electricity Generating Board taking the NUM to court for a breach of contract? Of course it did not. If we are talking about concern for third parties, we have to say what can be done in practice to deal with this problem.

Mr. Prior: Why does the hon. Gentle. man think that the Central Electricity Generating Board did not bring an action against the miners for picketing power stations? What reason would he give?

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to the light hon. Gentleman for that question because I want to deal with the question of employers when they are third parties. First of all, however, I want to deal with the original point raised by the hon. Gentleman. Section 98 of the 1971 Act and Amendment No. 81, which we agree deal with the same subject, are concerned mainly with blacking or secondary boycott. The 1971 Act dealt with blacking or secondary boycotting against anyone who was supplying goods or services but who was not a party to a dispute. The amendment would remove the protection of Clause 10 from the unions and would


enable the employer who was a third party and was not involved in the dispute to sue the union concerned. We on this side of the House believe that there are many circumstances in which boycotts could be legal. We believe that it is necessary to use boycotts in order properly to prosecute certain disputes.
It might be useful if I cited a practical example of a threat to induce a breach of contract on a third party. This is a case which led to legal action. I refer to D. C. Thomson and Co. Ltd. v. Deakin. At that time D. C. Thomson and Co. Ltd. ran a non-union shop, and to the best of my knowledge it still does. That company sacked a man because he joined NATSOPA, which might be referred to as an appropriate trade union. The union, or a group of men employed by Bowaters Paper Ltd., which supplied paper to D. C. Thomson, said to the employers that they might not be prepared to deliver paper. I remember the ringing tones of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) when he referred to "wretched individuals squeezed in the corner by a giant." I thought about that man who had the audacity to join NATSOPA and the treatment that he received at the hands of D. C. Thomson. I do not think that is the sort of case that the right hon. Gentleman had in mind, but I hope it helps to set in proper context this business of what is an appropriate way to deal with secondary boycotts.

Mr. David Mitchell: Is it not the case that under the 1971 Act there was a right of redress against the dismissal of a man for belonging to a trade union? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it is more desirable that there should be a dispute and a strike with consequent loss of production than to find a civilised and sensible way of settling a dispute as to whether a man should belong to a trade union?

Mr. Booth: No. If I wanted to argue that point I would not be quoting this case; I might be quoting the Con-Mech case. I am staying with this case for the time being. I am citing the case in order to demonstrate, in answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil, that if we are talking in terms of protecting wretched individuals squeezed in corners by giants, 
the action taken by trade unions in blacking or imposing secondary boycotts can be one of the ways in which unions can defend people.

Mr. Peyton: What I was concerned with was this. In the Bill the Government are concerned to sweep away from the path of anybody who is prosecuting a dispute any tiresome restrictions which may otherwise be imposed upon him. The Government at the same time are giving no thought at all to the rights of innocent people who may suffer terribly, and quite incidentally, as a result of the prosecution of that dispute.

Mr. Booth: I could not disagree more with the right hon. Gentleman. The process which he described is the very reverse of the process which we adopt in the Bill and particularly in this clause. What we are concerned about in this clause is that trade unions should have the minimum power necessary in order effectively to exercise rights on behalf of those who are members of a union. That is not to say that we are not concerned about people who may suffer as a consequence. We are extremely concerned about them. That is why I want to come to what I think is a far better way of looking after those people who suffer as a consequence than the method which has been proved to be ineffective by the operation of the 1971 Act.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Is not the hon. Gentleman saying that if armed robbery takes place on a sufficiently massive scale it is stupid to have an Act which will stop it?

Mr. Booth: No, I am not saying that. I am saying that if armed robbery took place on a sufficiently massive scale it would be necessary to have legislation to deal with it effectively. If the hon. Gentleman chooses to use that analogy, that is what I am saying; it is not my analogy. I am saying that Section 98 was ineffective in stopping blacking or secondary boycotting. In fact, those who could have used the law and could have had recourse to Section 98 did not use it to bring actions against trade unions in order to protect individuals.
Therefore, we have to find a way which is effective in dealing with this problem and a way which recognises that there can be instances in which the only proper course open to a trade union in a dispute


is to resort to blacking or to the secondary boycott. It is not, of course, undertaken lightly by unions, because it has disadvantages for them and for their membership as well as to the third party who suffers from the blacking or secondary boycott. Employers who are directly engaged in the business of negotiations with trade unions are very rarely enthusiastic for the idea of prosecuting unions which black them or subject them to secondary boycott. The kind of case I cited of D. C. Thomson and Co. Ltd. which brought an action against union officials is a very rare case. One has to look very far for such cases.
The effect of the amendment, however, would be to provide an inducement to certain people who would not have to live with trade union organisations afterwards. I do not want to cite current cases on this but it is obvious from modern experience that this consideration of whether one has to live with a union afterwards after having taken it to court for legal action is uppermost in people's minds. Therefore, it is not surprising that in the small number of cases in which such legal actions are brought a very high proportion usually involve people who are determined in any case not to have any union organisation connected with them, such as D. C. Thomson or people unlikely to be employing trade unionists following such action. The Donovan Commission applied considerable time to this issue.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does not the hon. Gentleman draw any distinction between a situation in which one can say "This law which we have made is somewhat difficult to apply" and, alternatively, enshrining in an Act of Parliament a kind of invitation to people to say "This is something to which Parliament and the Government have no objection at all, framing an Act of Parliament so that apparently Parliament and the Government of the day do not deem this to be at all undesirable? Does the hon. Gentleman draw any distinction between the two?

Mr. Booth: I am sorry that for once in our debates the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) is not present, because he would have come to my aid and pointed out that there is a great difference between conferring a right

and enforcing a law, and that what is proposed here is to confer a right on people who are subjected to blacking or secondary boycott to bring an action against somebody. Whether or not that will be effective does not depend solely on whether Parliament passes the amendment. Secondly, however, even if we passed it, it would depend on whether people were prepared to bring such actions. What I am seeking to adduce at this point is that a majority of employers who are subjected to secondary boycott or blacking are not prepared to engage in those actions.
The amendment would put at risk virtually all sympathetic action against third parties which resulted in a failure to perform any comercial contract. In the 1971 Act the idea of the extraneous party was enunciated to describe the third party who should have the right to bring an action against those who blacked him, and to make a distinction between him and those who were seen to be properly involved in the dispute with the employer. But the definition of the extraneous party attaching to the amendment is so wide that it would enable an employer who was financing a dispute or legal action which was being conducted by another employer to have the protection of this procedure, so far as it has any protective effects.
6.45 p.m.
I agree—I come very close to the views of one or two Opposition Members—that damage to the community which can result from strikes or from blacking or secondary boycott in modern terms can be of enormous consequence to the community. It is evidently the case that modern technological development in services frequently puts a very small number of people in a position that their action or their refusal to act can do enormous damage to the capital equipment of the country and to important services on which many people depend. Therefore, it is proper in the context of the amendment, having argued on the one hand that it will not be effective, nevertheless to address myself to the proper concern that has been expressed upon it.
In relation to that, one must ask how we are to deal with this problem. I would argue that we cannot deal with it by saying that those who will prosecute the secondary boycott or blacking must


be locked up in gaol or be subjected to legal action. That has never proved to be an effective solution. Even during the war, when the State had Draconian powers by comparison with the 1971 Act or this Bill, it was not possible by locking up the Betteshanger miners to ensure that that mine was worked. It could be argued that those miners were doing enormous damage to the community and denying the country essential fuel in the course of a war, when the country's existence was at stake.
I believe that the way in which the problem will be solved, the way the man who pulls a lever or turns a tap will be seen to be accountable to the whole community and engaged in consideration of the wider interest of the community, in concert with a very great number of trade unionists, is if we provide to the union of which he is a member a facility for resolving its problems without recourse to strike, blacklegging or secondary boycott. That is the way I hope the House will look at the amendment and the Bill, not as something isolated but as part of a wider policy for dealing with this problem.
I hope the House will recognise that we are introducing the Bill at virtually the same time as we introduce a conciliation and advisory service. We have made quite clear to the House that we hope to go on to enact further legislation which will put that conciliation and advisory service on a statutory basis. We believe that it is in this way that we will see an end to the need for strikes, blacking and secondary boycotts in a great many instances.
We believe that it is in that way that a solution will come about. To attempt, however, to bring it about by encouraging employers to take unions to court, by saying that the State must have power to deal with these people, is to try to turn back the clock. That would be to go back to a solution which has been tried and found wanting. I hope, therefore, that the House will recognise that while we are asking for the amendment to be withdrawn or, if not withdrawn, rejected by the House, it is not because we are unconcerned but because we believe that the correct solution is one which enables the matter to be resolved, recognising that there are instances where the

action is one which should properly be protected by law and that we must remove the causes and the number of occasions on which such actions are justified by a far more civilised means.

Mr. Anthony Fell: The Minister of State spoke about arbitration and conciliation machinery which is to be set up by a Bill. It is all very well to plead that in aid of throwing out an amendment. It is rather difficult to agree with the hon. Gentleman if one does not know what the plans are. Can he tell us exactly what that miraculous Bill is to provide that will avoid these difficulties?

Mr. Booth: It would be very difficult to plead that in order to dispose of the amendment if we believed that the amendment would be effective, but I have explained that I do not believe it would be effective because the absolutely parallel provision in the existing law has not been effective. We are not relying on the introduction of the Employment Protection Bill for the introduction of the conciliation and arbitration service. A large part of that service could be put into operation by administrative means, and we intend that that should be done.

Mr. Fell: When?

Mr. Booth: We intend that the House should be able to examine a number of proposals in connection with the CAS very shortly. Certainly the planning within the Department to put these proposals before the House is in a very advanced state. In the meantime, of course, we seek to use such conciliation facilities as the Department has, and these are considerable. Such facilities have improved along lines which will be completely compatible with the introduction of the CAS. We are not therefore saying that the House should choose between the CAS and the amendment. Our proposition is that the CAS would be required in any event and that it might be required more and would be a lot less effective if the amendment were carried.

Mr. Leon Britton: I was listening with bated breath for the conclusion of the Minister of State's observation to discover what would be the magic alternative which would deal with the ill which he appeared


to recognise existed and which he said the amendment would not cover.
We already have on the statute book legislation which, if it had been used by the trade union movement in the spirit in which it was originally intended, would have provided alternative ways of solving disputes without recourse to strikes and boycotts. In view of that, it is ironic for the Minister to say that the only way to deal with the problem is to pass the Bill unamended and to live in hope that the conciliation and arbitration service, a statutory body which has no teeth, will effectively cope with industrial disputes which a stronger Act containing fairer and firmer provisions has been unable to deal with.
It is a complete contradiction in terms to expect that to occur at some unspecified date in the future. Indeed a third party, who stands to benefit from the amendment, will have no power to req 'tire the parties to a dispute to avail themselves of the CAS. Still less will he have any power to make sure that they accept the solution recommended by the service however cogent and reasonable it might be. We are left with the real problem of innocent third parties. It is always possible to envisage hypothetical situations in which the third party is not as innocent as all that, but that is not always the case and it is always possible to envisage a situation in which the remedy put forward by the clause would be of no avail, but that is not always the case either.
The Minister of State prayed in aid of his argument the recent miners' dispute and spoke of the electricity workers being a characteristic example of people engaged in action against a third party. To present the analogy of a major nationalised industry in confrontation with its work force as being typical of the economy and industrial disputes as a whole is a complete misconception. Far more typical is the situation in which the small employer is faced with a strike. Whereas it might be contrary to national policy as conceived, rightly or wrongly, by the Government of the day to use the sort of weapon which would be available if the amendment were made, it does

Division No. 76.]
AYES
[6.56 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)


Aitken, Jonathan
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Awdry, Daniel


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Ancram, M.
Baker, Kenneth

not follow that a private employer would be reluctant to do so. For that reason I suggest that the Minister's analogy is wholly false and does not dispose of the argument.

Nor is the argument defeated by the fact that the provision appears in a similar form in the 1971 Act. I am sure the Minister of State accepts that the purpose of the legislation is not to lead through the courts a string of successful litigants who are able to operate the clause and obtain judgment as a result but rather to make it unnecessary for litigation to take place because the majority of people know what the law is and accept it and are prepared to abide by it.

Therefore, unless the Minister of State says that the trade union movement simply will not obey the law, has not obeyed the law and does not propose to obey any law which is passed, it follows that a law of this kind, if passed, would have a salutary effect on all but an intolerant minority involved in highly publicised cases which grab the headlines.

It was even said during the passage of the Race Relations Act that the purpose of the law was not simply to provide a solution for people for whom that was the only way out. The purpose was rather to encourage by education and other means conformity with the law by the vast majority of people. Thus, although that method will not always work—of course there will be disputes which are too large to be dealt with in this way, and of course there will be examples when the person who seems able to invoke the law does not immediately engage the sympathy of the community—as a small ancillary measure designed to ease the situation which at present afflicts us the amendment has a useful rôle to play and should be incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Prior: My right hon. and hon. Friends have made their case, and I think that we should now vote,

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 292

Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)


Banks, Robert
Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' &amp; Amsh'm)
Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridge WelIs)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Beith. A. J.
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)


Bell, Ronald
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Goodlad, A.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Benyon, W.
Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Gow. Ian (Eastbourne)
Money, Ernie


Bitten. John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Monro, Hector


Blggs-Davison, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)


Blaker, Peter
Gray, Hamish
Morgan, Geraint


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Grieve, Percy
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)
Grist, Ian
Morrison. Peter (City of Chester)


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David


Bralne, Sir Bernard
Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey


Bray, Ronald
Hall, Sir John
Neubert, Michael


Brewis, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Newton, Tony (Braintree)


Brittan, Leon
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hannam, John
Nott, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Havers, Sir Michael
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Buck, Antony
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Budgen, Nick
Hayhoe, Barney
Pardoe, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)


Burden, F. A.
Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner



Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. James


Channon, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Raison, Timothy


Churchill, W. S.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rathbone, Tim


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hunt, John
Rawllnson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Hurd, Douglas
Redmond, Robert


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cockcroft, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't' gd' ns' re)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)


Cope, John
James, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cordle, John
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dgeW'std &amp; W'fd)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Corrie, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)


Costain, A. P.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutslord)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen. James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Royle, Sir Anthony


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kimball, Marcus
Sainsbury, Tim


Dixon, Piers
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Douglas-Home, Pt. Hn Sir Alec
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Drayson, Burnaby
Knox, David
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lamont, Norman
Shersby, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lane, David
Silvester, Fred


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sims, Roger


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sinclair, Sir George


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan
Skeet, T. H. H.


Elliott, Sir William
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Emery, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'm'ngton)


Eyre, Reginald
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spence, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)
Splcer, Jim (Dorset, W.)


Farr, John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Fell, Anthony
Loveridge, John
Sproat, Iain


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
MacArthur, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Fidler, Michael
McCrindle, R. A.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stanley, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John
Steel, David


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
McLaren, Martin
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stokes, John


Fox, Marcus
Madel, David
Tapsell, Peter


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Taverne, Dick


Freud, Clement
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'carl)


Fry, Peter
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tebblt, Norman


Gardiner, George (Reigate&amp;Banstead)
Mawby, Ray
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)
Wakeham, John
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Winterton, Nicholas


Townsend, C. D.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Trotter, Neville
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Tugendhat, Christopher
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Tyler, Paul
Walters, Dennis
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Warren, Kenneth



Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Viggors, Peter
Wells, John
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Waddington, David
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.


Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Wiggln, Jerry





NOES


Abse, Leo
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Allaun, Frank
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Archer, Peter
Edelman, Maurice
Judd, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Edge, Geoff
Kelley, Richard


Ashley, Jack
Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Kerr, Russell


Atkins. Ronald
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Kinnock, Neil


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
English, Michael
Lambie, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ennals, David
Lamborn, Harry


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lamond, James


Bates, Alf
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Latham, Arthur(City of W'minster P'ton)


Baxter, William
Evans, John (Newton)
Lawson, George (Mothorwell &amp; Wishaw)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Lee, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Bishop, E. S.
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)


Boardman, H.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Booth, Albert
Flannery, Martin
Lipton, Marcus


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Loyden, Eddie


Bradley, Tom
Ford, Ben
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Forrester, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)


Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
MacCormack, Iain


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'ditch)
Freeson, Reginald
McElhone, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Galpern, Sir Myer
Macfarlane, Neil


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
McGuire, Michael


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James (Cardiff, S.E.)
George, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Gilbert, Dr. John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Campbell, Ian
Ginsburg, David
McNamara, Kevin


Cant, R. B.
Golding, John
Madden, M. O. F.


Carmichael, Neil
Gourlay, Harry
Magee, Bryan


Carter, Ray
Graham, Ted
Mahon, Simon


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Marks, Kenneth


Clemitson, Ivor
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Marquand, David


Cocks, Michael
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Cohen, Stanley
Hamling. William
Meacher, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Hardy, Peter
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Harper, Joseph
Mendelson, John


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Millan, Bruce


Cox, Thomas
Hatton, Frank
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Crawshaw, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William


Cronin, John
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)
Moonman, Eric


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cryer, G. R.
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Huckfield, Leslie
Moyle, Roland


Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Murray, Ronald King


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I, EdgeHl)
O'Halloran, Michael


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
O'Malley, Brian


Deakins, Eric
Jackson, Colin
Orbach, Maurice


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Janner, Greville
Ovenden, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David


Delargy, Hugh
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Padley, Walter


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Palmer, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)


Doig, Peter
John, Brynmor
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dormand, J. O.
Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)
Parry, Robert


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Dunn, James A.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Phipps, Dr. Colin

Prescott, John
Silverman, Julius
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Price, William (Rugby)
Small, William
Watkins, David


Radice, Giles
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Watt, Hamish


Reid, George
Snape, Peter
Weitzman, David


Richardson, Miss Jo
Spearing, Nigel
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Spriggs, Leslie
White, James


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stallard, A. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Whitlock, William


Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'st'[...], Fulh'm)
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rooker, J. W.
Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Roper, John
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge)


Rose, Paul B.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rowlands, Edward
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Sandelson, Neville
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Sedgemore, Bryan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Selby, Harry
Tierney, Sydney
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
Tinn, James
Woodall, Alec


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Tomlinson, John
Woof, Robert


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney &amp; P'plar)
Tomney, Frank
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Torney, Tom
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)
Tuck, Raphael



Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Sillars, James
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)
Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 12

PEACEFUL PICKETING

7.15 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I beg to move Amendment No. 78, in page 10, line 29, at end insert:
(2) No such picketing shall be lawful unless the trade union whose members are to attend at or near any such place as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection for any purpose mentioned therein shall first notify the chief officer of police for the area which includes any such place giving him the following information
(a) the names of the union members who are so to attend; and
(b) the dates and times at which, and places at or near which such members are so to attend.
The clause is a statement, to which no one would take exception, of what should be the law relating to peaceful picketing. Peaceful picketing sounds such an innocent thing that one would hardly believe the regrettable incidents which have taken place in recent years when people have tried to indulge in it. We are all familiar with those incidents. There is no need for me to remind hon. Members of their details, but we should profit by our experience and try to make some provision, administratively workable and quite simple and sound in principle, which would enable those regrettable incidents to be avoided in future. That is the purpose of my amendment.
The method of the amendment is to say that picketing would not be lawful unless the trades unions concerned first notified the police, gave the police the names of those who would be acting as pickets, and told them where they would be picketing. On many occasions the police already receive that information by one means or another, but if on all occasions they could obtain it from the outset they would have great advantages. It would enable breaches of the peace to be prevented and would enable the police in doubtful cases to ensure that the law was being complied with.
In that context I must point out that the very wide extension of the meaning of the term "trade dispute" bites on this clause relating to peaceful picketing and means that in future there may be even more doubtful cases of peaceful or allegedly peaceful picketing in controversial circumstances than there have been in the past.
Another result would be that if the police were there they could protect the picketing trade union members from angry members of the public, even from the angry wives of trade union members.
This is an eminently reasonable proposition. I claim no merit for the amendment's drafting, but if it is sound in principle, as I hope the House and the Government will find it, any defects in drafting can quite well be put right in another place.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has put his case very briefly. I shall reply briefly, although I entirely agree with him that the question the House is to decide about picketing generally is important. It is obviously one that must be discussed more fully on another occasion.
When we published our Consultative Document about the Bill we said that we thought we should be able to carry further the arrangements which were to be made about picketing generally and the law to provide for it. We wished to do so partly because of recent experiences and partly because of some of the changes of the law that we think have taken place as a result of the interpretation of the picketing law. For that variety of reasons, we wanted to include in the Bill a consideration of picketing generally.
However, when we went about it we discovered that it was a complicated subject and we did not think we should be able to deal with it properly in the Bill.
One possibility was that we should have a series of regulations that would be issued under the Bill, but we did not think that that would be effective, because we thought it wiser to think out what would be the form of the regulations before asking the House to deal with the matter in that way. Therefore, we have postponed dealing with any question of picketing till the Employment Protection Bill.
What we have done is not to extend the law about picketing in any sense. Whatever may have been on previous amendments the arguments about extension of the law, there is no extension of the law about picketing under this provision. Indeed, in a sense there is a limitation, because, as compared with the infallible 1906 Act, the clause excludes picketing of people's homes.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman introduces a proposal about notification to the police and how the police should deal with different forms of picketing. Obviously, that is a major matter to be dealt with under regulations, if we think of regulations, or under the general provisions of the Bill. Therefore, we do not think that it would be sensible to pick out notification of the police, be

cause there are several other aspects in which the police themselves are interested, apart from any other considerations. We think that the proper way to deal with a reform of the law of picketing is to take into account the representations of the police and others concerned, such as the National Council for Civil Liberties, which has an important document on the subject. We propose to do that in the next Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion will form part of the consideration to be included in that kind of discussion.

Sir David Renton: Probably through inadvertence, the right hon. Gentleman has stated a proposition that could not hold under the Bill. He said that the Government will be making regulations under the Bill.

Mr. Foot: No.

Sir David Renton: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say so, and I think that other hon. Members will bear me out. At any rate, the power in Clause 23 to make regulations does not include a power to make regulations for purposes in relation to Clause 12, relating to picketing.

Mr. Foot: I am sorry if that is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman understood me to say. I must have misled him. There is no power to issue regulations about picketing under the Bill, and there is no proposal to take such powers. If I inadvertently said that, I am sorry. Certainly, that was not my intention. We are not asking the House to settle in the Bill anything afresh about picketing. We are maintaining the law as it stands, with the single exception of a limitation about picketing of people's homes. We expect that over the coming months, in preparation for the Employment Protection Bill, there will be opportunities for discussion about this. When we come to consider that Bill we can decide whether we deal with picketing either by changes in the law or by having regulations that could be operated under that new legislation.
I hope that on that basis the House will not embark on a general discussion about picketing. I appreciate that it is an important, indeed a fascinating, question. Many hours could be spent on the subject. When I arrived at my Department


on taking office I was told that the previous Government had had long discussions about this. I do not wish to suggest here that officials at my Department were breaking the law by referring to what the previous people did. I am sure that the officials were not breaking the law. We can have long discussions on this subject later when further legislation is considered.
I hope that the Opposition understand the position, that no change is now being proposed in the picketing law apart from the single provision which I have referred to—and that concerns a limitation rather than an extension.

Mr. John Farr: The right hon. Gentleman cannot brush the amendment aside so lightly. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) is a former successful Minister in the Home Office and he, probably better than anyone else in the House at this moment, will well know what would or would not help the police in regard to picketing. I wish to support the amendment. The clause places particular emphasis on "peacefully", inasmuch as that word appears twice within the eight or nine lines of the clause.
Whatever intention the Government or the right hon. Gentleman may have in this matter, it will not necessarily be transmitted to the picket lines at the place of work which is the subject of picketing. The clause refers to
peacefully obtaining, or peacefully persuading ".
Peacefully obtaining or persuading can lead to impatience as busy people are detained and, in turn, prolonged detention can lead to violent action. Surely it is better for the Secretary of State to accept this modest amendment, which would enable the police to be on the spot in the first place and thus prevent trouble arising.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State intends to intervene again in the debate. It is confusing—sometimes he does intervene again and sometimes he does not. I should be interested to know whether, since the amendment was tabled, he has taken any steps to consult the police and get their advice. If he has done so perhaps he will give the House the benefit of any advice he may

have received from the police organisations. I am sure that the views of the police on this matter would be helpful to the House.
From the small amount of information I have been able to gather I believe that the police would warmly welcome notification being given to them before picketing takes place. I am concerned that under the clause there is no limit as to the number of pickets who can suddenly descend on an area without warning. The clause refers to "one or more", but how many more? There is no limit on the numbers of pickets who can suddenly appear without prior notification, and this could often lead to a dangerous situation.
What the amendment proposes is the very least that should be put into the Bill in regard to this matter. Other useful additions could be made to the amendment, such as requiring that notification to the chief police officer for the area be given in writing, and that the addresses—not just the names—of pickets be given so that their bona fides can be established.
I am convinced that if the amendment is included in the Bill some of the disgraceful and unhappy scenes of hatred and violence seen at picket lines in this country in recent times will be less likely to recur. I do not think that I am putting it too strongly to say that it is in the national interest that the amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Fell: I do not intend to transgress on the Secretary of State's suggestion that we should not dwell at length on this amendment, but I am a bit surprised at his attitude. My right lion. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has experience of this matter. He spoke only briefly, which is perhaps unusual for people in his profession. He has put down the most concise and easily understood amendment one could imagine, dealing with only a small part of the subject of picketing.
Had the Secretary of State been in opposition and faced with this sort of small amendment he would have entranced the House for probably 40 minutes and terrified the Government with his elocution and his beautiful language. Yet he now says that we must not dwell on this little amendment because we are going to have jam tomorrow—that we are going to have a


Bill later which will put everything right. The Secretary of State is full of good intentions and says that he will deal with the whole question of picketing in future legislation. But the proposal now before us is simple and is not difficult for anyone to understand. It is perfectly simple for even me to understand.
Surely the unions are not so stupid that they would not be able to understand the amendment? Surely even the dimmest member of a trade union would not be so dim that he could not understand this simple amendment? Surely the police are not so stupid that they would be unable to understand the terms of the amendment? Surely the execution of what is sought in the amendment would not cause inordinate trouble? Surely the Secretary of State can accept the amendment for the time being, until he brings in the legislation in which he has promised he will cover this entire subject? I appeal to him not to resist the case which has been put so briefly and so well by my right hon. and learned Friend.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: I wish to support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). Even if the amendment is unlikely to be pressed to a Division, I hope that the Secretary of State will nevertheless take careful note of the points that have been raised and of the additional matters I want to deal with when he comes to consider the form of future legislation on the subject, which we hope will embody the principle of the amendment. My reason for regarding the amendment as a particularly apposite one on which to speak arises from a practical experience in my constituency on 1st May a few years ago.
As will be recalled, there was a general but not unanimous campaign for launching a strike in protest against the then Industrial Relations Bill. It was left to different unions to decide whether they would take part in that strike. In my constituency the bus drivers decided that they would not. Nevertheless in the early morning of 1st May the bus drivers in Oxford were forcibly prevented by pickets from driving out of the depot. Those pickets did not belong to the same union as the bus drivers. They were

merely trying to enforce a general attitude of industrial action.
The police were not forewarned of the action that was to take place and were unable to arrive in time to permit the bus drivers to go to work. Accordingly the drivers were prevented from working as they wished to do.
There are two respects in which the amendment would be appropriate to such circumstances. First, if the provisions of the amendment had been law at that time the police would have been notified of the intention to picket. They would have been there and able to prevent any illegal action.
There is another respect in which the amendment is apposite. As I understand it, Clause 12 contains no reference to a trade union. It refers only to persons picketing. My right hon. and learned Friend's amendment implies that picketing would be lawful only when conducted by a trade union involved in the dispute.

Sir David Renton: May I congratulate my hon. Friend upon the alertness of his observation?

Mr. Woodhouse: I am grateful. I want to pursue that point because I am reliably informed that on the occasion to which I am referring a large number of pickets who prevented the bus drivers from driving out were not members of any union, except possibly the National Union of Students. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear this point in mind for the future. It is intolerable that picketing should be permitted in such a situation, when not only are the pickets not trade unionists who are in any way involved in the dispute but they are not even people who in the ordinary sense of the term belong to a trade union. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking that he will bear these points in mind for the future.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) on introducing the amendment. I cannot understand the Minister's argument. This is an important yet a small alteration. I do not understand why he cannot include it in the Bill. It would be in the interests of strikers, police and everyone else. The


right hon. Gentleman has said that he will introduce more comprehensive legislation later. That is very good but I cannot see why it should inhibit his accepting this small amendment, to which I do not think he has any objection in principle.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman listened with great care to what has been said and has promised that he will incorporate these points in future legislation. It is a pity we cannot have this one now. I am sure that the public feel strongly on this issue. The amendment would be of great assistance, because we have all seen the sort of situations that can arise in picketing.

Mr. David Waddington: I do not believe that the invention of television has proved to be an unmixed blessing, but at least it has brought home to people some of the objectionable practices which sometimes occur during an industrial dispute. The Secretary of State cannot argue that the Bill is not a suitable vehicle for dealing with the problems of picketing. because he has chosen to deal with it in Clause 11. Further, it is surely an open secret that shortly after he took office he was considering dealing with picketing in this way.
It is wrong that the public should have to wait before they can receive satisfaction on such vital matters. What worries me—I was worried about this in the debate on secondary boycotts—is that I am not sure whether the Government have their heart in the right place. I was not pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the offering of the National Council for Civil Liberties. The public certainly realise that there are abuses which have to be dealt with. I support the amendment because it is the least that the public are entitled to expect.

Mr. Prior: The brevity of this debate and the reasonable tone of the speeches should not be allowed to conceal from the House or the country the depth of feeling on the subject of picketing. This minor amendment would go some way towards helping the police to control some of the things we have seen occurring at pickets and would allow people who want to go about their normal, peaceful duties to do so.
In Committee we moved an amendment which would have made it possible for

the right hon. Gentleman to introduce regulations on the subject. This was a suggestion he put forward in his earlier document. That is the right way to proceed. If he is in a position to come forward later with further legislation dealing with picketing we shall welcome it. If, as is much more likely, it is to be left to the Conservative Party, when in government, to do something, I can tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that I have every intention that we should introduce regulations to govern the rules of picketing very much along the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in a footnote to his document of 22nd March. That would go a long way towards reassuring the public, who feel deeply that the present situation should not be tolerated.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I feel that I ought to put on record the views of my colleagues and myself on the subject of picketing. Our view is simply that picketing should be legal, but beyond that we believe that the fewer laws there are about picketing the better. We believe that most people who picket are peaceful citizens and that the situation should be kept in perspective. The number of occasions on which people cause trouble when picketing are rare. In our view legislation is not necessary to deal with such occasions.
Legislation which attempted in some way to regulate the conditions, times, circumstances or methods of picketing would only worsen the industrial situation. Basically my party's attitude is that picketing should be made legal, but beyond that it should be left to the common sense of the police and individuals.
With great respect to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir David Renton), I do not believe that anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the way in which trade unions work would expect paragraph (a) of the amendment to be implemented in practice.

Mr. Foot: This short debate illustrates the different emphases that ate placed on different aspects. The whole House cannot immediately arrive at the same conclusions about the way in which picketing should be dealt with. If it did, it would be a unique occasion. The problem is not so easy as that.
We shall bear in mind what has been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D.


Renton) and by all hon. Members who have spoken to his amendment. The proposal contained in the amendment is one consideration that has to be taken into account, but it is not the only one. The police may criticise what the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes, and the police will have the fullest opportunity to say what they think about the proposition, as about others.
I have been asked whether we consulted the police. We did so when we started to consider whether we could deal with picketing in the Bill. We had discussions with the Home Secretary and with other Departments. The Home Secretary put to us the views of the police. It was partly as the result of those discussions that we decided not to deal with the whole matter in the Bill. It was evident from what the police said, through the Home Office, and what others said, through other Departments, that if we were to get it right we should have to take longer.
We should also have to take into account what was said by the National Council for Civil Liberties. I do not know why anybody should jeer at what the council says—

Mr. Waddington: If that is the right hon. Gentleman's view, why did he think it right to deal with picketing at all in the Bill? By doing that, he has given the impression that the Bill is a charter for trade union rights—and hang the rights of the community!

Mr. Foot: If we had not put that provision in the Bill there would have been no law about picketing. If the hon. Gentleman thinks the matter over for a moment he will realise that we have taken the only sensible course. We protect the right of peaceful picketing. That is the law as it stands. We have sustained that right, and no one should complain on that ground.
We shall take into account the ideas that have been put forward tonight, and many other ideas. When we bring forward our Employment Protection Bill no doubt we shall have a day's debate on the subject of picketing, which gives rise to much public interest. We wish to deal with this matter properly, and we do not claim to do so in the Bill. There will need to be much fuller examination and we shall have to take into account views

from all quarters. That is a perfectly sensible way to proceed.

Sir David Renton: In seeking the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment, I also ask leave briefly to speak again. I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment, in spite of a sense of disappointment, because the right hon. Gentleman said that when he takes his next bite at this controversial cherry of trade union legislation he will bear in mind what has been said in the debate. For that, at least, I am grateful.
I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) that we can leave a great deal to the common sense of the police. One of the purposes of my amendment is to give the police the opportunity to exercise their common sense. They cannot exercise it unless they know that picketing is to take place. I also agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that only on a minority of occasions do things go wrong, but when something does go wrong it is essential that the police should be there at an early stage and not arrive too late.
I hope that in his further thoughts the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the not unhelpful device which all trade unionists should welcome, of trade unions exercising some control over peaceful picketers.
For those reasons I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14

RESTRICTION ON GRANT OF EX PARTE INJUNCTIONS AND INTERDICTS

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 10, line 43, leave out 'reasonable steps' and insert:
steps which in the circumstances were reasonable'.
The amendment makes a small improvement in the clause. As I understand that the Government are prepared to accept it. I say no more than "Thank you".

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): We are happy to accept this improvement to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIA TIONS CEASING TO BE INCORPORATED

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 12, line 36, at end insert:
'(3A) A certificate given by the official trustees of a trade union or employers' association that the persons named in the certificate are the appropriate trustees of that union or association for the purposes of subsection (2) above shall be conclusive evidence that those persons are the appropriate trustees of that union or association for those purposes; and a document which purports to be such a certificate shall be taken to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.'

No. 8, in page 12, line 37, leave out 'subsection (3) above' and insert 'this section'.

No. 9, in page 12, line 43, at end add:
'(5) Nothing in section 12 of the Finance Act 1895 (which requires certain Acts to be stamped as conveyances on sale) shall be taken as applying to this Act.'—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Clause 18

EFFECT OF ABOLITION OF NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT ON PENDING PROCEEDINGS IN AND DECISIONS GIVEN

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 13, line 22, after 'any', insert:
'proceedings, means that the proceedings shall be treated as discontinued and, in relation to any'.

No. 12, in Page 14, leave out lines 9 to 15 and insert:
'if the complaint was presented before 30th April 1974 and is pending in the Court, the complaint shall, on the passing of this Act, be transferred by virtue of this subsection to an industrial tribunal.'

No. 13, in page 14, line 27, leave out 'industrial'.

No. 14, in page 14, line 31, leave out from 'Session' to 'or' in line 32 and insert:
'(c) in the case of an appeal of a description referred to in paragraph (b) above, where the proceedings in the industrial tribunal were commenced on or after 30th April 1974 the appeal'.

No. 15, in page 15, line 4, leave out 'such an' and insert 'the'.

No. 16, in page 15, line 21, leave out 'such a' and insert 'the'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Clause 19

EFFECT OF REPEALS ON PENDING PRO CEEDINGS AND DECISIONS GIVEN BY INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 16, line 9, at beginning insert 'Where'.

No. 18, in page 16, line 10, leave out 'which'.

No. 19, in page 16, line 12, leave out from '1974' to end of line 14 and insert:
'then, when the repeal of that provision by this Act takes effect—
(a) the complaint or any decision on the complaint shall abate;
(b) any right of appeal against any such decision which is exercisable before that repeal takes effect shall be extinguished;
(c) any appeal from any such decision of any decision on any such appeal shall abate'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Clause 20

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTIONS 17 AND 18

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 16, line 29, after 'may', insert:
'so far as not enforced'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Clause 26

MEANING OF TRADE DISPUTE

Sir David Renton: I beg to move Amendment No. 79, in page 20, line 11, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment 93, in page 20, line 12, at end insert:
so long as the person or persons whose actions in Great Britain are said to be in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute relating to matters occuring outside Great Britain are likely to be affected in respect of one or more of the matters specified in subsection (1) of this section by the outcome of that dispute".

Sir D. Renton: The clause introduces a new and greatly enlarged definition of "trade dispute". In particular, for the first time in our history these words are included:
There is a trade dispute for the purposes of this Act even though it relates to matters occurring outside Great Brtain.
The expression "outside Great Britain" means anywhere else in the world.
Having read the Committee proceedings and having accepted, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminister, South (Mr. Tugendhat) said, that there is a growth of multinational companies, I nevertheless suggest to the House that that factor alone cannot justify a territorial extension of the conception of trade dispute to a wide variety of events happening anywhere in the world. It is a fantastic proposition. Therefore, it would be wrong to allow subsection (3) to remain in the Bill without any limitation.
Fortunately, the Conservative Front Bench have tabled a limitation of the Bill in the form of Amendment No. 93, and I shall leave them to put their own point. We trust that the Secretary of State will accept Amendment No. 93 or give an undertaking that a suitable amendment will be moved in another place to cut down the fantastically wide territorial scope of subsection (3).
The Secretary of State must realise that the Bill is not an altogether popular measure, and the widening of the definition of "trade dispute" which bites on other clauses in the Bill, including the provision on picketing, will make the Bill unpopular. The late Sir Winston Churchill, speaking about 25 years ago, said that the trade unions had become one of the great estates of the realm. That was not a constitutional exactitude but a recognition of the growing strength, responsibilities and status of the trade unions. However, we have now reached a stage with the trade unions which we have often reached with other powerful elements in our society. The British people do not like any particular section of the community to become too powerful. Nobody should know that better than the Secretary of State. I remember his predecessor in Ebbw Vale, the late Nye Bevan, saying in this House that he thought Henry VIII was a very good monarch because he curbed the power of the monasteries. The right hon. Gentleman was brought up to believe that my successor as Member for Huntingdon. shire, Oliver Cromwell, was a good Member of Parliament because he curbed the power of the then monarch who was attempting to be an absolute monarch

Mr. Woodhouse: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend meant that

Cromwell was his predecessor, not his successor.

Sir. D. Renton: I am sorry for that putative reincarnation, of which I was unintentionally guilty. I hope that nobody will accuse me of such a sentiment. I should of course have said "predecessor".
The point I am making is that when our people feel it is necessary to check the growth of power, strong personalities are needed to take on the job, as history has shown. The Secretary of State for Employment has a strong personality. I thought that his appointment was a shrewd move, because he was a keen democrat and libertarian, and I thought that his persuasive eloquence might help the unions to see sense. But I must confess that the Bill, with its immensely wide extension of "trade dispute", is a great disappointment. I never thought the right hon. Gentleman, with the qualities we all know he possesses, would have inflicted such a Bill on the House. It is in that spirit that I appeal to him, in all sincerity, to consider whether it is right to have this vast extension of the conception of a trade dispute.
I should like to give one example of what the Bill could mean if the clause remains as it is. If there were a trade dispute in, say, a South American country—a dispute which was internal to the trade union affairs of that country—and some trade union militants in Great Britain got hot under the collar about it, they could legitimately cause a strike in this country which could do our economy immense harm. Therefore, the clause must be changed.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: I shall seek to deal only with Amendment No. 93 which is more narrowly drawn than Amendment No. 79, so ably moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton).
This matter was fully discussed in Committee and resulted in a tied vote. It is a matter of great importance to the nation as a whole. We feel strongly about this point and therefore I shall seek to recapitulate the main heads of the argument. I hope that I may speak reasonably briefly, but the brevity of my remarks should not be taken as suggesting that we do not regard the matter as important.
To begin with, there is a good deal of common ground between the Government and the proposers of this amendment. The Government aim to bring the law up to date in terms of multinational companies and trade disputes and we applaud this move. Indeed, I would claim that a book which I wrote some years ago was somewhat in advance of the Government on this point—

Mr. Foot: Wait to see our Employment Protection Bill.

Mr. Tugendhat: It could be said that the Government were following the recommendations then made.
We recognise that the development of multinational companies with plants in many different countries means that the relationship between plants across frontiers and seas is similar in practice to the relationship between plants in different parts of a single country. Therefore, it is reasonable for employees of the same employer to have interests in common and equally reasonable for them to combine to secure those interests. One has only to think of trade union contracts with similar terminal dates, or of endeavours to extend the best working conditions achieved in one subsidiary of a company to another subsidiary, or such matters as the speed at which an assembly line moves where a major concession may be made by employers in Germany which it would be desirable to extend to this country and to other countries in which the company operates. We accept the principle of the combination of workers employed by the same company in different countries, and I think that this point is common ground between the two sides. At least the Minister in reply to the debate need not deal with that matter.
There is, however, an important area of difference between the two sides of the House. We feel that it is important to be as careful as possible about the way in which we extend the substantial liberties, privileges and immunities granted to trade unions involved in industrial disputes and to make sure that the liberties are not granted too widely or carelessly, but only where justified. This difference is epitomised in the sense that we believe there must be a direct link between events happening overseas and the interests of those who are involved overseas and the

interests of workers and other employees in the United Kingdom. There must be a direct and tangible link.
8 p.m.
The Government take a contrary view. As always, the Minister of State was frank; he made it clear that the Bill is designed to go much wider and that the Government do not believe that there should be such a link at all. When one considers how the Bill and particularly this clause have been drawn one can see how wide these provisions are and how great are the dangers of political events in faraway places being brought into our workshops and damaging our economy.
The Bill sets out the type of dispute which counts as a trade dispute, and in British conditions the definitions are perfectly reasonable. Such matters as discipline under Clause 26, membership of a union, or consultation procedures, are things which we fully understand in a British context, but they can be the basis of politics in other countries. Such matters as consultation and union membership in South Africa or Chile or all too many other countries have a different connotation from the one that we understand.
Therefore, the danger is that disputes in other countries could become the subject of disputes in this country as employees of a multinational firm took industrial action in support of workers under different political régimes when those workers were engaged in matters which, although legitimate here, were not of direct interest to work people here. They might be of direct interest to them as citizens, but not in terms of an industtrial dispute.
The danger does not end there. The items listed in the Bill are relevant not only to industrial disputes between workers in another country and a multinational employer with employees here but also when there is no link whatever between the two sets of work people. The Minister of State and I in Committee took as a purely illustrative example coal miners in this country and in Germany. Our discussion shows how widely the Bill has been drawn and how dangerous it is. If the German coal miners took strike action against the German State mines and the British coal miners employed by the National Coal Board, which has no relationship with the German mines, decided to come out in


sympathy, under the Bill not only would they be at liberty to do so but they would be covered by all the immunities and privileges which the Bill provides for industrial disputes. We believe that to be totally unreasonable.
The Minister of State took as perhaps a more realistic example the possibility of dockers here engaging in support of the German miners in an industrial dispute to avoid moving coal to Germany. I accept that that would be more justifiable, but I would argue that great damage could be done to our economy. If imports of coal into Germany are to be prevented, it is up to the German dockers to support their coal-mining brothers in the Ruhr and not for British dockers. If the Government can base their case only on sympathetic action of that sort, the Bill is not justified.
It is not of those hypothetical examples, however, that one is really afraid. We recognise that the vast majority of industrial unions in this country would think seriously before engaging in sympathetic action, and that they do not take and have not taken such action lightly, but we live in an age of protest and shrinking frontiers, and there is an increasing awareness among people of all countries of the injustices and wrongs perpetrated in other countries. In many ways that is a good thing. I think we would all rejoice at the success of people in the West, notably in Britain, in persuading the Russians to take a more civilised attitude towards the Jews and others who have fallen into disfavour in the Soviet Union. The efforts of people in this country which have borne such outstanding fruit are absolutely to be commended. It is right that people in this country should be concerned with what happens in other countries and, if they feel strongly, should demonstrate peacefully and protest in an appropriate fashion to persuade foreign Governments to act more reasonably.
However, there is all the difference in the world between people here acting in that way as citizens—protesting peacefully outside embassies during cultural exchanges, writing letters to ambassadors and making speeches in the House and elsewhere—and industrial disputes. The distinction that we would draw is that it is right for the citizen to take an interest in what happens overseas and do all he

can to put wrongs right, but that he should act as a citizen and not as an employee. If, in pursuing the purpose of righting wrongs overseas people in this country harm our economy and employers who have no conceivable responsibility for what happens abroad, that is unjust and wrong.
Amendment No. 93 would limit the scope of the Bill to multinational companies and to events and issues which have a direct bearing on the interests of people in this country. When matters arise not directly connected with people here, they should be able to act as citizens but not as unionists and employees.

Mr. Peyton: I support what my hon. Friend has said, and I do not want to repeat what I said in an earlier debate. We live in an age when the community is increasingly vulnerable to this kind of pressure. That the people of this country should be subjected to pressures because of disputes which have nothing to do with them, which are right outside the boundaries of this realm, is quite unacceptable.
Again one is driven back to the complaint that the Government are concerned solely with smoothing the path of the trade union movement. I do not regard that movement as the weak and pathetic affair that the Government evidently have in mind. It is an enormously powerful giant in our modem life, and giants need to be curbed by Parliament for the protection of the public and of individuals who cannot protect themselves. The fantastic bald, unqualified statement that an industrial dispute shall be an industrial dispute no matter where it takes place in the world is a totally unacceptable widening of immunity.
I should have been happy to support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) in his simple amendment to cut out what I regard as an offensive and unacceptable pair of lines in the Bill, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Tugendhat), who put his amendment with great skill, have seen otherwise. I commend them for their restraint and, naturally, I shall go along with them.

Mr. Robert Edwards: It was not my intention to speak in the debate, and I shall not take long, but I see the burden of the Opposition's case as being a desire to curb the international power of the trade union movement while wanting no restraint on the increasing power of the multinational company. That is precisely it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then let us analyse what is happening in the world.
One-quarter of the total output of the Western world today is produced by about 300 multinational companies. Those companies operate across frontiers. There is no sanction against them, apart from the international trade union movement. There is no Government legislation. There is no register. They arrange for tax havens to avoid their responsibility to the community. They arrange pollution havens to dodge their responsibility for anti-pollution measures. They close factories without consulting the workers. About 60 per cent. of all capital investment today is directed towards reducing unit labour costs, creating technological unemployment.
All that is done across the frontiers of the world. How does the trade union movement discuss with those multinational companies the anti-social effects of their global investments? If a multinational company can operate across frontiers in that way, often pursuing a policy of internationalising both production and distribution, surely working people organised in their trade unions are entitled to look at those global investments and their effect upon the employment of their own people in different countries.
How does one stop a multinational company such as Dunlop-Pirelli deciding to establish a factory in Spain, South Africa, Portugal, Latin America or, say, Southern Asia where starvation labour is exploited and at the same time deciding to close a factory in this country? Is it wrong for the trade union movement to discuss with such a company the anti-social effects of its investments? If it closes a factory in Germany, is it wrong for our British workers to say "We want to talk about the problems of German workers"? If Shell International decides to close a distilling plant in Holland and to open one in Saudi Arabia or in Libya, are not the Dutch

workers entitled to talk to Shell on an international basis about these problems? If Shell refuses to talk, is it wrong for workers across the frontiers of the world to say "We shall impose a sanction against you in the form of bans on overtime until you are ready to talk"?
Is there anything wrong with that in this modern world of internationalising production? [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not the amendment."] Yes, it is. What the Opposition want is no sanction against the multinational company but sanctions against the trade union movement.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I take, first, Amendment No. 79, moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon. shire (Sir D. Renton), to delete subsection (3) altogether. I shall not say much about this because I think that there is virtual unanimity in the House that action may be needed, or that the power ought to be vested in the trade unions to take action, against multinational companies. The difference between the two Front Benches is on the question whether, when action is taken against a multinational company, there is a direct interest for the workers in this country.

Sir David Renton: The hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand me. I said that the terms of subsection (3) should be limited but that, if they were not limited, it should be taken out in due course.

Mr. Fraser: I am sorry. I was taking the right hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment as it stood, which would take out subsection (3).
The extension of the definition of trade dispute as it stands in the Bill does not authorise political action. It is limited to the items listed in Clause 26. It does not authorise a purely political strike because a group of workers or a trade union disagree with the political complexion or political views of someone else, or with the view taken by another Government.
On the general principle, I thought that we were, in effect, fitting into the general view which is now taken that we ought to approach these matters at least on a European basis. Having some responsibility for certain aspects of European policy, I am constantly urged that this country should adopt a recommendation


about hours of work operating throughout the European Economic Community, about basic holidays, about equal pay, about mergers, about mass dismissals, and so on. It seems to me perfectly logical to permit trade unions to press on with those improvements in hours and conditions on a European or a multinational basis.
I turn now from points of general principle to the details of the official Opposition amendment—Amendment No. 93. Although it is similar to an amendment which the Opposition moved in Committee, its terms are somewhat narrower, because the amendment in Committee allowed immunity if any party to the dispute in this country had an interest, but by the present amendment the Opposition are saying that
so long as the person or persons whose actions in Great Britain are said to be in contemplation of furtherance of a trade dispute … outside Great Britain are likely to be affected … 
I think that hon. Members will concede that that is fairly narrow.
The nub of the matter is that the Opposition are saying that if a worker in this country has a direct interest, if he is affected, if he benefits from his action, the immunity ought to apply, but if he does not benefit from his action, if it is purely altruistic or idealistic, the immunity should not apply.
It would be extremely difficult to say with certainty whether a striking party in this country was likely to be affected. I give an example. Workers at Ford in Great Britain may be concerned about the terms and conditions and wages of Ford workers in Spain, where there are no trade unions. They may decide to take action in support of a trade dispute in Spain. It may well be that the action taken by the Ford workers here is entirely altruistic, that they are not affected personally in any way, or, indeed, that they may suffer loss by it. But is that any reason for not allowing them to take action in this country?
Here is another example. It is not uncommon for seamen aboard certain ships not to be paid their wages on arriving at a certain port. From time to time the Transport and General Workers' Union in this country and dockers' unions

in other countries have taken action to secure the payment of wages to, say, Greek seamen, and this action has been successful. But the party taking the action did not benefit by it. It was idealistic, an effort to help one's fellow man. I should support the maintenance of opportunity for that effort and action to be taken
Workers in this country might take action here over a trade dispute between South African black workers and a company there. Again, in the terms of the Opposition amendment, the workers in this country would not be
likely to be affected in respect of one or more of the matters specified in subsection (1)"—
those being the items forming a trade dispute. Nevertheless, I think their action would be justified.
Time and time again it has been the tradition of the working class and trade unionists in this country to take action or to suffer consequences or penalties because of the sufferings of people in other parts of the world. That was done by the cotton workers of Lancashire during the American Civil War. Those workers did not benefit; they suffered willingly because of the needs of others. Such action and suffering were experienced by the British workers in connection with past Hungarian revolutions. Indeed, there is a tradition in this country of helping people who are suppressed and oppressed in other countries. There is the example of Prime Minister Gladstone assisting Garibaldi to make his journey from Sicily to Italy during the Risorgimento.
There is not that much difference between the two Front Benches on this matter. The Opposition say that trade disputes with international implications should be authorised where the workers in this country have an interest at stake. I say that such action should be authorised even where workers in this country act idealistically and in the interests of other people.
During this debate we have not heard one example of the kind of conduct about which the Opposition is worried. It is dangerous to try to conjure up hypothetical, imaginary situations and then try to design a law to meet a situation which has not occurred.
I hope that, on balance, the House will accept my argument and will reject the Opposition amendment.

Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to ask leave to withdraw my amendment. I do so with some reluctance, because I would prefer to see the official amendment passed. If, by any change, I pressed my amendment to a conclusion and it were carried, the Opposition amendment would be in a somewhat difficult position. Therefore, I think it best I withdraw my amendment and let the official Opposition amendment be the

Division No. 77.]
AYES
[8.25 pm


Adley, Robert
Costain, A. P.
Hall-Davis. A. G. F.


Aitken, Jonathan
Crouch, David
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crowder, F. P.
Hannam, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James
Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss


Ancram, M.
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hastings, Stephen


Archer, Jeffrey
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Havers, Sir Michael


Atkins, Rt.Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Dixon, Piers
Hayhoe, Barney


Awdry, Daniel
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Baker, Kenneth
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Drayson, Burnaby
Heseltine, Michael


Banks, Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Higgins, Terence


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Durant, Tony
Holland, Philip


Beith, A. J.
Dykes, Hugh
Hooson, Emlyn


Bell, Ronald
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hordern, Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Elliott, Sir William
Howell, David (Guildford)


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Emery, Peter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)


Biffen, John
Eyre, Reginald
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)




Hunt, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hurd, Douglas


Blaker, Peter
Farr, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Fell, Anthony
Iremonger, T. L.


Body, Richard
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Fidler. Michael
James, David


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)
Finsberg. Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std &amp; W'fd)


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Jessel, Toby


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bray, Ronald
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Brewis, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Brittan, Leon
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
Jopling, Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fox, Marcus
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Freud, Clement
Keliett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fry, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Kimball, Marcus


Buck, Antony
Gardiner. George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Budgen, Nick
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Burden, F. A.
Gllmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' &amp; Amsh'm)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Knox, David


Carlisle, Mark
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Lamont, Norman


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Goodhew, Victor
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Channon, Paul
Goodlad, A.
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gorst, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Churchill, W. S.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gray, Hamish
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)


Clegg, Walter
Grieve, Percy
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Cockcroft, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Loveridge, John


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
MacArthur, Ian


Cope, John
Grist, Ian
McCrindle, R. A.


Cordle, John
Grylls, Michael
Macfarlane, Neil


Cormack, Patrick
Gurden, Harold
MacGregor, John


Corrie. John
Hall, Sir John
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)

subject of the Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 93, in page 20, line 12, at end insert:
so long as the person or persons whose actions in Great Britain are said to be in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute relating to matters occurring outside Great Britain are likely to be affected in respect of one or more of the matters specified in subsection (1) of this section by the outcome of that dispute."—[Mr. Prior.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 294.

McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Prior, Rt. Hn. James
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


Madel, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stokes, John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Raison, Timothy
Stradling Thomas, John


Mather, Carol
Rathbone, Tim
Tapsell, Peter


Maude, Angus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Redmond, Robert
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Mawby, Ray
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tebbit, Norman


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't' gd' ns' re)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridge Wells)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Townsend, C. D.


Mills, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)
Trotter, Neville


Miscampbell, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tyler, Paul


Moate, Roger
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Money, Ernie
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Monro, Hector
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)
Viggers, Peter


Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Waddington, David


Morgan, Geraint
Sainsbury, Tim
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Morgan-Giles. Rear-Adm.
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wakeham, John


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Morrison, Peter (Chester)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mudd, David
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)
Wall, Patrick


Neave, Airey
Shersby, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Neubert, Michael
Silvester, Fred
Warren, Kenneth


Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Sims, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sinclair, Sir George
Wells, John


Nott, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Onslow, Cranley
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wiggin, Jerry


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'm'ngton)
Winterton, Nicholas


Osborn, John
Spence, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Pardoe, John
Sproat, Iain
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)
Stainton, Keith
Younger, Hn. George


Pattie, Geoffrey
Stanbrook, Ivor



Percival, Ian
Stanley, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Steel, David
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Pink, R. Bonner
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)
Mr. W.Benyon.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Ewlng, Mrs.Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Allaun, Frank
Conlan, Bernard
Faulds, Andrew


Archer, Peter
Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Ashley, Jack
Cox, Thomas
Filch, Alan (Wigan)


Ashton, Joe
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)


Atkins, Ronald
Crawshaw, Richard
Flannery, Martin


Atkinson, Norman
Cronin, John
Fletoher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Bagier, Gordon A T.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cryer, G. R.
Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Ford, Ben


Bates, Alf
Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)
Forrester, John


Baxter, William
Dalyell, Tam
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Davles, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Freeson, Reginald


Bidwell, Sydney
Davles, Denzil (Llanelli)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Boardman, H.
Deakins, Eric
George, Bruce


Booth, Albert
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Ginsburg, David


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Delargy, Hugh
Gourlay, Harry


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Graham, Ted


Bradley, Tom
Dempsey, James
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Doig, Peter
Grant, John (Islington, C.)


Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
Dormand, J. D.
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'ditch)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)


Buchan, Norman
Dunn, James A.
Hamling, William


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn
Dunnett, Jack
Hardy, Peter


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Edelman, Maurice
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Campbell, Ian
Edge, Geoff
Hatton, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Carmichael, Neil
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Heller, Eric S.


Carter, Ray
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
English, Michael
Hooley, Frank


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ennals, David
Horam, John


Clemitson, Ivor
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)


Cocks, Michael
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Huckfield, Leslie


Cohen, Stanley
Evans, John (Newton)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Coleman, Donald
Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Mendelson, John
Sillars, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Julius


Hunter, Adam
Millan, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I. EdgeHI)
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Small, William


Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Jackson, Colin
Molloy, William
Snape, Peter


Janner, Greville
Moonman, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morris Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stallard, A. W.


Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Moyle, Roland
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


John, Brynmor
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W)
Murray, Ronald King
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Stott, Roger


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Oakes, Gordon
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
O'Halloran, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
O'Malley, Brian
Swain, Thomas


Judd, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Kelley, Richard
Ovenden, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Kerr, Russell
Owen, Dr. David
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Padley, Walter
Tierney, Sydney


Kinnock, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Tinn, James


Lambie, David
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Tomlinson, John


Lamborn, Harry
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tomney, Frank


Lamond, James
Parry, Robert
Torney, Tom


Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P'ton)
Pavitt, Laurie
Tuck, Raphael


Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Pendry, Tom
Urwin, T. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, Ernest G.
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Lee, John
Phipps, Dr. Colin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Prescott, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, William (Rugby)
Watkins, David


Lipton, Marcus
Radice, Giles
Watt, Hamish


Lomas, Kenneth
Reid, George
Weitzman, David


Loughlin, Charles
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wellbeloved, James


Loyden, Eddie
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, James


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Whitehead, Phillip


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitlock, William


McCartney, Hugh
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


MacCormack, Iain
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McElhone, Frank
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rooker, J. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


McGuire, Michael
Roper, John
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rowlands, Edward
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


McNamara, Kevin
Sandeison, Neville
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Madden, M. O. F.
Sedgemore, Bryan
Wilson, William (Covantry. S.E.)


Magee, Bryan
Selby, Harry
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Mahon, Simon
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
Woof, Robert


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Marks, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney &amp; P'plar)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Marquand, David
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)



Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford) 
Mr. John Golding and


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question accordingly negatived

Mr. Cyril Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 20, line 17, leave out subsection (5).
Subsection (5), as I understand it, appears to introduce a wholly unsatisfactory situation in that action might be taken or a threat issued despite the fact that the employer had already conceded the case. I read what was said in Committee, but the debate on this point was very short. It consisted merely of two speeches. I therefore move the amendment to enable the Minister to say why this provision is required.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) for

raising this point which, as he fairly pointed out, was not covered in Committee.
Subsection (5) of the clause, which defines a trade dispute, covers the situation where one party accedes wholly or in part to a demand or threat of another party which if resisted would have led to a trade dispute. What that means in simple English is that if an employer threatens a union with a lockout unless it complies with certain conditions which he wants to impose, and if the union agrees to those conditions, the union is not thereafter prevented from having a right of action against the employer, and he would still have the protection of the


Bill as if there had been a normal trade dispute.
To put the situation the other way round, if a trade union threatens an employer with a strike unless he agrees to a change in working conditions and he concedes wholly or partly that change in conditions, he is not prevented from having a right of action in the court against the union.
The need for that provision became apparent as a result of a decision in the court of appeal. We are doing no more than providing a protection which is totally compatible with the provision of immunities in the case of acts in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.

Mr. Smith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27

GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO INTERPRETATION

Amendment proposed: No. 21, in page 21, line 12, leave out from 'which' to end of line 22 and insert—
'(a) is not under the domination or control of an employer or a group of employers or of one or more employers' associations; and
(b) is not liable to interference by an employer or any such group or association (arising out of the provision of financial or material support or by any other means whatsoever) tending towards such control'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this amendment we are to take Amendment No. 98, in page 21, line 22, at end insert
'and every trade union shall be deemed to be an independent trade union unless the contrary is proved'.

Mr. Percival: Amendment No. 98 is an Opposition amendment. Amendment No. 21 is the revised definition of an independent trade union. I did not know that we would be dealing with it formally, and I should like to hear a word of explanation of it.
I should like the Minister to say why he is not prepared to accept Amendment No. 98. I think that his new definition

is better than the old one since one can understand it. In addition, I do not think there is a fused participle in it. In any case, it makes sense. However, I suggest that it is subject to the disadvantage that if a union wants to establish that it is an independent trade union—and there will be occasions when a union wants to establish that—if somebody challenges that fact the union will have to prove all the ingredients of this new definition. The second paragraph entails proving a double negative, and to try to prove a double negative is something that strikes a chill into the heart. All that our amendment says is that there should be a presumption that every trade union shall be deemed to be an independent trade union unless the contrary is proved.
I should have thought that Amendment No. 98 was a pro-union amendment because it is saying that if a union wants to take advantage of certain provisions, for which purpose it must satisfy the court or whoever is concerned that it is an independent union, that shall be deemed to be the case until somebody challenges it and proves the contrary. It is in that spirit that the amendment is offered, as a provision which would be of assistance to a union finding itself doing something in connection with which it wished to establish that it was an independent trade union. A union would have to set out to prove these ingredients only if someone had challenged it. On the wording of the amendment, the onus would be on the challenger to prove that it was not an independent trade union rather than the union having to prove that it was.
I suggest that our amendment is helpful. I shall not ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to take this matter to a Division, however, because I do not think it is the kind of matter on which to divide the House. It is rather one to which we should try to find a solution. I invite the Minister to say a word on it so that we may keep trying to find a solution.

Mr. Booth: I hope that in seeking to move Amendment No. 21 formally I did not give the impresion that I was trying to avoid having to give an explanation or a debate. I overlooked the fact that Amendment No. 21 was coupled with Amendment No. 98.
First, Amendment No. 21 would replace paragraph (b) of the definition of "independent trade union" which appeared in the Bill as originally printed. We are doing this to meet a number of adverse criticisms made of paragraph (b) in Committee, and not only the criticism that it contains a fused participle, although that has caused us some searching.
We could not turn to normal authorities to find out whether that particular criticism was crucial. I do not know whether Professor Wedderburn or Mr. Kahn-Freund or any other eminent gentlemen who are such authorities on these matters could have told us. We consulted two good authorities on the English language which gave conflicting opinions on the point, so we addressed ourselves to other criticisms of paragraph (b). In particular, we were concerned that paragraph (b) of our definition rested on whether or not facilities were provided by an employer for a union as one of the tests of whether or not the union was independent. We quickly realised—

Mr. Percival: May I asist the hon. Gentleman? I accept that his definition is a better one and we shall accept it. All that I was saying was directed to our own amendment. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give further explanation of the definition, so be it, but that was not what I was inviting him to do. If he wishes to save time and make progress, I shall be perfectly content if he addresses himself to whether he will accept the presumption that we would like to see added to the definition, and if not, why not.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Booth: I gladly respond to the hon. and learned Gentleman's invitation The reason why we are not willing to accept Amendment No. 98, which would have the effect of deeming all trade unions to be independent unless the contrary was proved, is that we do not think that at present the automatic presumption is justified.
We have regard to the fact that the CIR in a number of its reports has pointed out that some of the challenges to recognition made under the provisions of the 1971 Act were on the basis that the existing union or staff association

was not independent. The CIR took account of this and decided that it was one of the factors appropriate for consideration before granting recognition to a union. It might be possible in statutory provisions for the conciliation and arbitration service to provide a mechanism for testing whether or not a union could Le regarded as independent for the purposes of registration.
Meanwhile we think that it would be better to rely on the definition in the Bill. If a union sought to claim the protection of being an independent union, it would be for the court to decide whether or not it was within the definition, or if someone sought to exercise a right which depended on the person against whom he was acting not being independent it would be for him to put that before the court and prove accordingly. That is the best way of doing it, and that is why we cannot accept the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Percival: The Opposition propose not to press Amendment No. 98 but, instead, to consider what the Minister has said. If it is necessary to return to the matter, there are further stages when that can be done.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 101, in page 22, in the definition of ' union membership agreement ' at end insert:
'or of another appropriate independent trade union'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we may also take the following amendments:

No. 96, in Schedule 1, page 27, leave out lines 35 to 43 and insert:
'(a) it is the practise in accordance with a union membership agreement, for all the employees of this employer or all ememployees of the said class as the dismissed employee to belong to independent trade unions; and
(b) the reason for the dismissal was that the employee was not a member of an appropriate independent trade union and had refused or proposed to refuse to become or remain a member of such a trade union'.

No. 102, in page 27, line 38, leave out
'a specified independent trade union, or to one of a number of specified'.

No. 103, in page 27, line 41 leave out out from the first 'of' to the end of line 43 and insert:
'an appropriate independent trade union and had refused or proposed to refuse to become or remain a member of such a trade union'.

Mr. Percival: This group of amendments raises one of the most important issues in the Bill. It so happens that it also arises in a part of the Bill which at first sight is not the easiest part to understand, but in the verbiage are to be found changes which the Government propose which are of profound importance not only to millions of persons who are not members of trade unions but to many people who are members and who may suffer through these provisions if they remain unamended. A number of well-known bodies have expressed grave concern about the provisions and we believe—I know that the Liberal Party takes the same view—that their concern is justified. The bodies include the Institute of Journalists, which has made representations to both our parties, and those representations have fallen on equally fertile ground in both parties. Other bodies which have made representations include the Confederation of Employee Associations, the Confederation of Professional and Executive Associations, the Newspaper Society, and the Steel Industry Management Association.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Some societies deserve credit for making their representations at a suitably early stage. Other bodies, and particularly the newspaper societies, made them desperately late.

Mr. Percival: I do not think that I can comment on that. I think that the newspaper societies' representations came mainly through newspaper proprietors. The speed varied with which newspaper proprietors in different parts of the country responded. Representations from the Steel Industry Management Association came quite recently. I think that the airing that was given to this matter in Committee rightly and usefully drew attention to the dangers, and so more and more people appreciated what it was all about.
I now return to where I started. This is a part of the Bill which is so complex that anyone could be forgiven for not immediately appreciating the full signific

ance of the paragraphs with which we are concerned. We had a substantial debate on this matter in Committee and everything that was said there is on the record. Therefore, I propose to try to cut across that debate and to put the point as briefly as possible, putting it in practical terms—namely, translating the legal language as far as possible into practical terms. To do so it is necessary to draw the attention of the House to page 27 of the Bill.
This debate is on Amendment No 101, which is an amendment to a definition. In fact, the core of the matter is to be found in Amendment No. 96. which is the amendment to the schedule out of which all the difficulty arises. In page 27 we find set out the various paragraphs which are relevant to the argument with which I have to seek to cope. It is first necessary to draw attention to paragraph 7(4) which is an integral part of the argument. Sub-paragraph (4) says that
for the purposes of this Schedule the dismissal of an employee by an employer shall be regarded as having been unfair if the reason for it … was that the employee was, or proposed to become, a member of an independent trade union;
or:
had taken, or proposed to take, part at an appropriate time in the activities of an independent trade union.
The sub-paragraph says, to put it in simple language, that if an employer sacks a man for taking part in the activities of an independent trade union, or because he proposes to do so, the dismissal shall be unfair and that the man shall be entitled to compensation. Probably everyone would say, "Of course, that must be the law." Probably no one could contemplate that a man could be sacked for taking part in trade union activities and be deprived of compensation for unfair dismissal. But as the Bill stood before Committee that is exactly what could have happened.
Paragraph 7(5), as it was, went on to say that notwithstanding sub-paragraph (4), dismissal for taking part in the activities of an independent trade union or proposing to do so might be fair in the circumstances set out in the sub-paragraph. I am glad that the Government had the good sense to withdraw subparagraph (5). We shall come to some consequential amendments later.
But now we have the new sub-paragraph (6). I hope to satisfy the House that almost all the dangers which were inherent in the situation while sub-paragraph (5) was there still exist. I still cherish the hope that if the House is satisfied that that is the case—as it is—there will be Labour Members as well as Opposition Members saying, "No, we will not have that."
Let me say at once, to pre-empt any argument based upon it, that I recognise that there is some similarity between the provisions of sub-paragraph (6) and those of Section 17 of the 1971 Act. That was not referred to in Committee, because the Minister probably accepts that those provisions in the 1971 Act are in such a different context that reliance upon them here would be irrelevant. The Minister of State kindly nods agreement, so I shall not pursue the point.
That enables me to come straight to sub-paragraph (6) and to demonstrate to the House, by taking examples of how it would work, what worries us about it. Let me take first the case of a single union. I refer to the case in which in a particular plant there is one union, which wants to persuade an employer to get rid of employees who are not members of any union. At present, that union could bring pressure to bear on the employer to dismiss the man, and if it were strong enough it could put the employer in a position in which he had to dismiss him. But at least the man would receive compensation for unfair dismissal, and uncle: a combination of provisions the union might also be required to make a contribution to that compensation. If we pass the measure in its present form, all that goes.
The pattern I am about to suggest to the Minister is the one which I think we must accept would be followed if we substituted for the present provisions those proposed in sub-paragraph (6). If the union were strong enough, it would tell the management "We want a union shop agreement, with us as the only specified union", and it would get that. It could then tell management, "That man, that man, and that man, are not members of the union, let alone members of our specified union, and you must dismiss them." If a union is strong enough to obtain a union membership agreement in which it is the only specified union,

it is but a small step to suppose that it is strong enough to get its way in this.
The union does not even have to give the man a chance to join it before it can use these provisions. If the provision could be read in such a way that before anybody could take advantage of subparagraph (6) a man must at least be given a chance to join the union, that would be something. But, as it stands, if a man tells the union, "I should like to join", all that the union has to do is to say, "We shall not give you a card". Then it can tell the employer, "This man is not a member of this union. Under the provisions of paragraph (6), if you do as we say and sack him, you will not have to pay him any compensation." That would be right, if that was what the union said to the employer. I wonder whether the Minister agrees with this premise—

Mr. Booth: I dissent.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Percival: If the Minister dissents from it let him point to the provisions of this paragraph which do not lead to the effect I have suggested. I believe that the effect of the sub-paragraph, as at present drawn, is exactly as I have stated. It is dreadful if that is the case. We in the Conservative Party—no doubt the Liberal Party feels the same—simply will not stand for the loading of the odds against the individual in that way. It is outrageous. But that is not all; the sub-paragraph is obviously intended to apply to cases—I hope that hon. Members who are not members of unions will regard this aspect of the matter as particularly interesting—in which the man to be dismissed is a member of an independent trade union but not one of the unions specified in the agreement, otherwise there would be no point in having the word "specified" in the subparagraph. The Minister appears to agree with that.
This can be illustrated by reference to a matter which is currently causing grave concern. I stress that I am not speaking here in a hypothetical or fancy way. The point I am making is directly related to something which we can now see going on. Let us take a two-union situation in which one union is stronger than the other. The stronger union goes to the employer and says, "We want a union


membership agreement with just us as the specified union." If it is strong enough—it is, after all, a test of strength—it will get a union membership agreement on those terms. Once it has got that agreement it can tell the employer that the members of the other union must go, or the recognised union will go on strike. If the union is strong enough to get a union membership agreement it will be strong enough to have its way in this respect.
All the other ex-hypothesi members of an independent trade union have one of two alternatives—either to join the smaller, weaker union or to join the stronger one; although I suppose there is another alternative in relation to the smaller union. If it happens to be nonaffiliated it can affiliate and then rely on Bridlington. If that is what the Government have in mind—to drive the nonaffiliated weaker unions into affiliation, it is disgraceful. If one were cynical one might be forgiven for supposing that that objective is at the back of someone's mind. I should be glad to hear the Minister's observations on that possibility.
I have postulated the sort of thing that might happen. There is a current dispute between the National Union of Journalists and the Institute of Journalists. A similar situation could arise in this case.
It may not be that all members of the National Union of Journalists take this view, but we know from its publicity that the leaders are on record as saying that they want all grades of those concerned in the industry, including all who are members of the Institute of Journalists, and editors, to be full members of the one union. If the Bill is passed in this form it will undoubtedly be available to the stronger of those two unions as an additional weapon for getting what it has openly said it wants, and, what is more, for getting it in the wrong way.
It is disgraceful that an advantage should be given either to a union, as against an individual, or to the stronger of two unions in a two-union situation by altering the provisions in this schedule, particularly when we remember that the purpose of the schedule is to provide compensation for unfair dismissal. It should be confined to that.
It is a disgraceful misuse of the law to alter the provisions so as to secure some result other than that—particularly the kind of result which I suggest will flow from these provisions—whether it be intentional or otherwise. We think that it is intentional because we cannot see any other reason why the provisions should be revised so as to give an advantage to the strong against the weak.
At whose expense is all this being done? It is being done at the expense of the unfortunate individual, be he a non-union member or a member of an independent union other than that which has the union membership agreement. The result of it would be that he would be applying for compensation, which could be several thousands of pounds. It has not been as large as that yet. What we are talking about is related to the union membership agreement, which is the new phrase for the closed shop. If a union takes advantage of these provisions to drive out people who are not members of the union or who are members of other unions and a monopoly situation is created, it follows that the unfortunate individual who is driven out could have grave difficulty in getting another job elsewhere. Therefore, the compensation which would accrue to him, if he were not deprived of it by this provision, could be substantial.
It is a disgraceful misuse of the law to use it to secure this result. It is disgraceful to do it at the expense of an individual's right to compensation. The Minister may now have got himself into a muddle. Suppose the dismissal is fair under sub-paragraph (6). The employer can put that forward by way of defence. It may also be in some circumstances unfair under sub-paragraph (4). To the employer that will be an admissible reason, but it cannot prevent the man who has been dismissed from relying on subparagraph (4) as establishing that his dismissal was unfair.
Is it not possible that an employer who had been obliged to dismiss an employee at the end of the sequence of events that I have put forward in a two-union situation would put forward the defence, under sub-paragraph (6), that the dismissal was fair because all the facts came within sub-paragraph (5), but that the employee who had been dismissed might be able to say with equal force


that he had been dismissed because he was participating in the affairs of an independent trade union, and, unhappily, that was not the independent trade union specified in the trade union agreement?
There may be an answer to that dilemma. If there is, I suspect that it is detrimental to the unfortunate employee who finds himself in that position. If that is the answer, it is every bit as disgraceful as all the other provisions I have castigated.
The Government may say that even if I am right in what I say about the ploys that might be adopted it is not their intention that they should happen. In Committee the Government said that they were neutral and did not intend any of the things which I put before them. If the Government mean that, their course is simple. They should accept the amendment. The amendment does not strike at the all-union shop. If the Government do not want to see the result of which I have been speaking, their course is to accept Amendment No. 96, which sets out the revised wording of the paragraph rather than making piecemeal amendments. The amendment preserves what the Minister wants to preserve and avoids, the evils which we say flow from his wording.
If the Government are unwilling to accept the amendment, the House and the country can draw only one conclusion, which is that the changes are intended to favour particular groups of workers against other groups. The person who will suffer under sub-paragraph (6) if the Government have it wrong is the worker. The person who will benefit from it is another worker. Those who will benefit are already strong and those who will suffer are weak.
9.15 p.m.
It would be idle for the Minister to suggest that the weak will derive some benefit from the subsection and the strong no benefit at all. Because the subsection echoes what we have so often found in the Bill—namely, that it gives advantage where enough advantage already lies and ignores the rest, who are weak and need some assistance—we seek to remedy the situation. When we get down to brass tacks and reduce this somewhat complicated language to practical terms, we must conclude that the House cannot

allow the provision to remain unamended. We suggest that our amendment will make a great improvement to the situation.
So far I have spoken almost entirely to Amendment No. 96. Amendment No. 101 relates to the definition of a union membership agreement. It may well be agreed that it is desirable to make such an amendment, and I shall not spend any time on that point. The crux of the matter is dealt with in Amendment No. 96. I understand that the Chair will permit a separate Division on that amendment. I hope that the amendment will be given wholehearted support, since this is a matter of great importance to many people who need our help—far more than do those who would benefit from the subsection in its present form.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: There are parts of the Bill in which the subservience of the Government to requests by the trade union movement to be given legal privileges and immunities has been carried to ridiculous lengths. The provisions with which we are now dealing show the power which is being given to trade unions which operate closed shop agreements and what will happen to members of smaller unions who do not belong to the larger organisations. It almost takes one's breath away that any responsible trade union leader could have requested such a thing.
I am sure the Government will want to reconsider the powers which they are seeking to give trade unions. Indeed, it will be quite disgraceful if they do not reconsider the matter at the end of the debate. The amendment illustrates how greatly an individual can be affected by a closed shop agreement where power is abused and where an individual or group of individuals are singled out in an irresponsible way. This is what happens when complete immunity is given. The Government are depriving the individual of redress against the irresponsible use of trade union power.
It is undeniable that these abuses will happen. Only a few people on the far side of the argument believe that trade unions are in a separate category from other powerful institutions and are incapable of abusing the rules or eroding the rights of members. Most people know that some of the worst cases of individuals adversely affected by union power arise


in the enforcement of closed shop agreements when a man's dismissal is sought and he is "sent to Coventry'. All too often, men dismissed in these circumstances in some industries have great difficulty in finding other employment.
There may sometimes be a serious reason why a union withdraws membership. A union is entitled to its rules and to expel members who are in breach, and in a closed shop there are certain consequences. But there have been cases of membership being withdrawn almost frivolously. Sometimes it is because men have refused to take part in a strike which began as an unofficial strike but which later, when the position of those who led it has become stronger, leads to the withdrawal of membership from those who did not follow militant leadership at the right time. Sometimes these matters come down to clashes of personality between a union official and an individual in the works. In such cases the law should protect the individual.
Some who support what they regard as union rights see any individual who in any circumstances finds himself outside a union as an aberrant character, a deviant, a mischief-maker, eccentric or crank. Sometimes the people in the middle of industrial disputes who refuse to join the union are eccentric or difficult to get on with. But the law and society should not persecute the crank, the eccentric, the man who wants to walk alone. It is appalling to see a Left-wing party which contains men of some liberal views being intolerant of the eccentric and supporting a union's right to persecute.
That is precisely what the Government have secured. Their change of the law has only one effect. It means that a man who is sacked for this purpose will get no compensation. So aberrant is he and so intolerable to the Labour Party that it insists that his employers should pay him no money if he is dismissed.

Mr. Booth: The hon. Member is making a very serious charge against the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right too."] I take it that I command the agreement of some hon. Members in that statement. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me of one instance of a union acting in the way he has described, so as to substantiate the charge that he has made?

Mr. Clarke: Is the Minister suggesting that I should give him a single instance of an "angry silence" type of situation in which a union member has been expelled in these circumstances? I cannot think of an individual case, apart from that of Mr. Goad, who actually brought an action under our legislation. I do not want to say anything about Mr. Goad. I have never met him and he may be an unusual or eccentric character, but, as I said, such eccentrics should be tolerated.
To throw the question back, is the Minister asserting that no such cases can occur and that the law should give no protection because it is inconceivable that what I have described could ever arise in any single, solitary instance?
The Minister proposes to give to a trade union power to secure the dismissal of individuals and their barring from employment. If he imagines that my inability at once to name an individual example proves that no such cases have occurred, he will no doubt try to support that case when he replies, but few members of the public will accept it.

Mr. Robert Redmond: In Committee on the Industrial Relations Bill I referred several times to a man in my constituency who had never worked in his trade for about 30 years because he was thrown out of the union after a row with the branch secretary and then could not get a job because there were closed shops throughout the town. He has had bitter experience of the closed shop. He has complained to me many times about it, and even now he writes to remind me of his case. One case like that is quite enough to make bad law.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for that information. I am only sorry that my hon. Friend could not see the smiles which crossed the faces of Members on the Government side when he gave that example.

Mr. Waddington: rose—

Mr. Clarke: Obviously, examples are about to flow in. It is most unfortunate that when these examples are given hon. Members opposite seem to assume that such people must have something wrong with them. They have no more knowledge of the case than I have, but their immediate reaction is to say that if a


man has the temerity to quarrel with his union he is some sort of aberrant who has to be expelled from the tribe.

Mr. Waddington: In Committee I cited precisely the sort of case to which, one assumes, the Minister of State was referring, so he cannot possibly suggest that there are no such cases. I gave an instance in Committee.

Mr. Clarke: Other hon. Members have the advantage in being better prepared than I was for the Minister's temerity in suggesting that there were no such cases. However, I do not want to take much longer, since it is clear that others are anxious to speak and add their examples.
Another equally important feature of the Bill as it stands is that power is given not only to turn out individuals but to deal with other members of independent trade unions which happen to be minority unions in an industry. This is entirely consistent with the Government's approach that in an inter-union dispute, when one union is seeking a closed shop, the Bill shall favour the strong. It favours the one which happens to have won the dominant position in order to get its union agreement. That union is then to be facilitated to secure the dismissal of members of its rival.
No doubt the Minister will at some stage attempt a defence of his proposal. My hon. Friends have already shown what a dog's breakfast the drafting of the proposal is as it stands, making dismissal fair and unfair at the same time in certain circumstances. I suspect that the Government's intention is that the strong shall prevail and that members of minority unions should be expelled.
Others of my hon. Friends will no doubt deal at greater length with the situation in journalism. If what the Government propose is to occur in journalism, I can think of no more dangerous prospect. Is it suggested that one union, if it secures a monopoly, shall be able to expel members of smaller unions and freelances, as the NUJ has been urging?
Plainly, far from being a short emergency measure to get rid of the 1971 Act and go back to where we were, the Bill is a total capitulation to the most extreme demands of some sections of the trade union movement. The harm that

will be done to the livelihood and employment of individuals will be incalculable if the Government continue, with majorities of one, two or three, to try to push it on to the statute book.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Ernle Money: My hon Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) touched on the effect of the Bill in journalism, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) stressed how sinister certain aspects of the Bill could be. It is particularly sinister that when this House tends to throw away its own liberties and those of the people of this country it is so often done before a practically empty bench of a Government who are proposing measures of this sort, as is now happening.
I start by declaring an interest. For some years it has been my privilege and pride to contribute to the national Press articles on the less contentious subjects, such as the arts. As a member of a profession I am not allowed to be a member of the National Union of Journalists, proud as I would be to join that body.
Against this background, the English Press and the freedom of the English Press have always benefited enormously from the fact that there is no closed shop in journalism.
The Secretary of State has been associated long and distinguishedly with the Press in this country. One would have thought he would be proud of the traditions of the Press rather than seek to tear those traditions up and throw them out in a casual way. It is sad that he should be a party to something which could create a situation—if he looks at the situation as closely as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport has just invited the House to look—which he must appreciate could have the effect of destroying the basis of a free Press in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he knows that that is true. The right hon. Gentleman waves his hand in an arrogant way. I shall give way to him later. I put three points to him. The first point concerns editorial content and the position of the editor who has always previously been an associate and who now is in a position where his editorial content could be controlled by the


majority union. The second point concerns the member of a minority union within a newspaper. The third point concerns the question of the freelance.
If the right hon. Gentleman says that there is no threat to one of our basic liberties—the freedom the Press—I shall be interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Foot: What the hon. Gentleman has said about the threat to the freedom of the Press under this Bill is a gross exaggeration of the situation. Moreover, all his facts are wrong. He said that there was no such thing as a closed shop in the newspaper industry. I have worked on newspapers for 20 years in closed shop situations. During the whole of that period I have never heard of anything that could conceivably bear out the facts advanced by the hon. Gentleman.
As to the particular cases to which the hon. Gentleman is now referring, there is a case to be put on the other side. He is presenting one part of the facts. All his attacks on these matters are wild exaggerations. They are grotesque distortions of the facts.

Mr. Money: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman has used a cataract of rhetoric. None the less, he has not answered any of the questions I put to him.
I now return to deal with a matter that I believe is sinister. It is deeply sinister to see someone who has expressed himself as long and as deeply as the right hon. Gentleman has in the past, now being willing—in a way that one can only say is quite unworthy of him—to throw away the traditions of his profession, including the tradition by which the members of his profession have always been proud of their own freedom.
I said that I am not a member of the National Union of Journalists. I wish I could be. However, I should be very worried, if I were a member of the National Union of Journalists, or of any other Press union, if I saw what the politicians of the extreme Left are doing, in this case—meddling not only with the basic freedom of my trade but with the basic freedoms of this country.

Mr. Norman Fowler: My hon. Friend the Member for

Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made a general case for the amendment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) returned to the specific point of journalism. That is what I should like to deal with. I declare straight away an interest as a journalist and as a member of the National Union of Journalists for the last 12 years.
First, I suggest—I also suggest it to my hon. Friends—that it is important that we should recognise the feelings of working journalists who, nationally at least, work in an industry which is, to put it at its mildest, under pressure. It is altogether understandable that there should be a feeling that professionally trained journalists should form the bulk of newspaper staff. It is altogether understandable and reasonable that they should expect, other things being equal, that the professional staff should be members of the journalists' trade unions. Indeed, it will be extremely interesting when the interests of hon. Members have to be declared to see how many hon. Members mention journalism as a major financial interest. It will be interesting to see how many of those also then declare their interests as a member of one of the journalists' trade unions. I look forward to an NUJ recruiting campaign in the House of Commons. I look forward to the Secretary of State taking on a new job as father of the chapel at Westminster.
However, that having been said, let us also be clear about the limits to which union membership in the newspaper industry should be taken. It would be a mockery if journalists working for what they were proud to see and proud to defend as a free Press forced colleagues into union membership. The Press fights for the right to disagree. The Secretary of State, in a proud and long journalistic career, has fought for the right to disagree, and the right to disagree with Governments. The Press fights for the right to disagree with officialdom generally. That is surely the whole basis upon which newspapers operate and the basis of their freedom.
Therefore, how ironic it would be if, because of the Bill, journalists were to be forced or dragooned into union membership. The right of journalists themselves to disagree should also be a


right which is recognised in any legislation. That is one matter. But what would be even more fundamental and objectionable would be if journalists were forced into one particular trade union.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he had worked in newspapers which operated closed shops on Fleet Street for about 20 years. I do not know of many newspapers—certainly in the NUJ or Institute of Journalists sense—which operate closed shops. The majority case is that they do not, that they do not want to operate closed shops and that they would object if that were ever forced upon them.
As a member of the NUJ I want no part of a policy which says in effect that all journalists should join that union, because other members of the journalistic profession may have decided, because of their free will or for any number of reasons, that they prefer to be members of the Institute of Journalists. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) mentioned this matter. Why should I or the NUJ take it upon ourselves to say that members of the profession should be members of only the NUJ? I do not see why members of the Institute of Journalists should be presented with a choice of either joining the NUJ or putting their jobs in jeopardy. That is not a free choice. It is something which hon. Members and most journalists will regard as fundamentally objectionable.
The right hon. Gentleman and his hon Friends should address themselves seriously to this question. There are very real fears among journalists and working editors about the effects of the Bill—a Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, drawn up and brought forward by a man who has been a working journalist all his life.
The representations that I have received are the same as those which my hon. Friends have had. The West Midlands Press in my area says that the effect of the Bill
would result in a rapid decline in employment opportunities for members
of the Institute of Journalists,
and even a total exclusion from all but a few jobs.
It says that a single union which had control of journalists, including editors, employed by newspapers

would be a serious threat to the freedom of editorial expression, which is essential in a democracy.
That fear, which was expressed by my right hon. Friend, is shared by men like him who have spent a lifetime in journalism, and it should be taken very seriously indeed. I believe that the provisions in the Bill are not in the interests either of journalists or of the freedom of the Press.

Mr. Redmond: So far this debate has dealt largely with the position of members of the National Union of Journalists and the Institute of Journalists. Most of us have had letters from editors of our local newspapers. I have received one from the Editor of the Bolton Evening News, dealing with the point which has been covered fully by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). What interests me is the total absence of interest among journalists in the Press Gallery.
I did not intend to take part in this debate until my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) spoke and was challenged from the Government Front Bench on the subject of the closed shop. I felt that I really ought to speak from experience of this matter. Every time we on the Opposition side of the House talk about the tyranny of the closed shop we hear giggles and laughter from Government Members who seem to think that we on these benches have no experience whatever of industrial relations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is quite plain that they have not the faintest idea what they are doing. They make noises like that, but they have no idea of my background in industry in Lancashire. It is from that experience that I wish to address the House.
I want to dilate on how strongly I feel about the question of the tyranny of the closed shop. I gave an example from my own constituency when I interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. I should like to mention a personal experience in Wigan, and I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) is present. I was in industry in that town. Two shop stewards in my small engineering firm came to me one day and said that there was a non-unionist in the works and that they wanted him fired. So far as I knew,


it was a union shop. The trade unions knew very well that I regarded the AEU, as it was known then, as the proper body with which to negotiate on behalf of the employees of the company. I had no idea whether there was 100 per cent. membership; I was not interested. I regarded the union as the proper negotiating body and I would have thought that anyone with any sense would have belonged to the union, but it was not my job, as I saw it, to recruit to the union.
The situation began to look awkward when the two shop stewards insisted that that man either joined the union or got the sack. I said, "It is not my job to recruit for you. You must persuade him to join the union if you can." I said, "I will go to the wall rather than have the tyranny of that man being sacked because he might disagree with you."
A man for whom I had a very high regard at that time, and whom I regarded as a personal friend—although he was chairman of the constituency Labour Party and I was an officer of the Conservative Association—was called Gerrard Kennan, a man for whom everyone in the town had the highest regard. He was the district organiser of the AEU. He did not press for a closed shop. The problem was resolved because we had a sensible, responsible trade union official dealing with the situation. So far as I know, the man joined the engineering union, but there was no question of my bringing undue pressure to bear. I was prepared to go to great lengths in a stand against what I regarded as tyranny.
That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was talking about. It is not good enough for hon. Members opposite to grin and pretend that it does not happen. The one instance to which I have referred in my constituency could have been tyrannical, and it would have been enough to encourage me to make sure that this sort of law was put right. I have spoken from personal experience, and that is why I have entered into this debate.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: The Minister of State regarded it as inconceivable that there should be any kind of tyranny or oppression, and the Secretary of State inter

vened with indignation at the suggestion that any such thing could happen in the newspaper industry as a result of the action of the National Union of Journalists. I find it astonishing that those reactions should have been shown in view of the fact that in Committee upstairs I gave one illustration of the activities of the NUJ and repeated it on the Floor of the House yesterday. It is only because of the attitude shown by the Ministers that it is necessary once again to restate the facts.
The Editor of the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette has been fined, and four senior executives of that newspaper have been expelled from the NUJ, because they insisted on putting out a paper at a time when the NUJ thought there should be a strike, in spite of the fact that the editor of the newspaper regarded it as his professional duty—as it is the duty of editors of all newspapers—above all else to bring out the newspaper, come what may. That is a case under appeal within the NUJ, but the fact that it could have happened at all illustrates even now, without a closed shop situation, how dangerous a closed shop can be and how great is the pressure that can be exerted on an editor, let alone an ordinary, humble journalist. Surely, that must be a very powerful reason for supporting this amendment.
I would like to forestall some of the arguments put forward by the Minister when this matter was considered upstairs. He said that the provisions of the Bill in its unamended form were neutral on the issue whether one union could compel people working in a plant to join it at the expense of any other union. That is a matter upon which it is impossible to be neutral, because once one allows it to happen, as has been said, one is encouraging or at least permitting strong unions to do this. It simply will not do to pretend to be blind in the matter, and say, "I do not know, I do not care what happens, as nothing in my Bill permits it." The very fact of omission is itself an act of commission and an act of encouragement to the strong against the weak.
Finally, the protection which the passage of this amendment would give is, I regret to say, extremely limited. That must be very disappointing for those who have set their hopes on it, but in a way it is a further argument, in that it need not


frighten the Government too much. It is very limited protection, for the reason that all that would happen if this amendment were passed would be that somebody who dismissed an employee as a result of pressure from a union in this situation would have to pay compensation. But if the threat of a strike was so great, so damaging and so horrifying, that the employer was prepared to pay that compensation, and if the pressure that the union was able to assert was so strong as to make him feel it worthwhile to pay the compensation rather than keep the man on, there is nothing in the Bill, as amended—if it is amended—to stop an employer taking that view.
The protection is therefore very narrow and limited. It is saying only that if there must be this form of oppression, this form of closed shop, at least there should be a price to pay and some kind of limited compensation for the individual who suffers. Surely that is not too much to ask in the interests of justice for the individual.

Mr. Booth: In the light of the general tone of the remarks in the debate I am entitled to claim the right of dissent or objection, because I shall attempt to refute in total the serious allegations that have been made against the effect and intentions of the Bill. Before I do that I wish to answer the direct question put to me by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), which was also referred to by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I was asked whether it could be fair and unfair in the same situation, under paragraph 7(4) and (6) of Schedule 1, for a person to be dismissed for two reasons—that is, for not being a member of a specified union and for taking part in the activities of an independent non-specified union.
This is a most improbable situation to pose in relation to the closed shop, but it would be a question of fact for the tribunal as to what was the principal reason, since it could hardly be both, and it is on the principal reason that the tribunal must decide. I cannot conceive of that situation in a closed shop arrangement.
I turn to the only case which has been raised in industrial terms as verification of a serious objection in respect of a par

ticular union, in the position of what has been described as a weak union against a strong. I am referring to the case of the Institute of Journalists in relation to the NUJ. That is the only case that has been adduced. We have not been told of any other union which fears for its life under this provision.

Mr. Percival: The hon. Member is quite wrong. I gave a list of unions and confederations of unions which are deeply worried about what might happen to them under these provisions.

Mr. Booth: I retract what I said. If there is a list of other bodies I shall be glad to examine it during the course of the remaining proceedings on the Bill. But the only body which has come to me with a deputation on this matter was the Institute of Journalists. I gladly met that deputation and I listened to three main concerns which were expressed about the institute's position, namely, that it was at a disadvantage compared to independent unions under the Bill as originally drafted, and it therefore might be in difficulties in competing for membership with the NUJ within the various newspapers. It expressed concern about the fact that its corporate status, as the Bill was originally drafted, would have prevented it from being recognised as an independent trade union. It also expressed the fear that those of its members who at some time in the future, in circumstances which it suggested might come to pass, joined the NUJ would be told to write things which they would not write if it were left to their unfettered judgment.
In the Bill we have gone as far to meet these concerns as is reasonable and possible, in the context of the way in which people join unions in this country and are represented through unions. To begin with, we made provision, by Government amendment, for the special register bodies to have the immunities of any other trade unions provided they met the trade union definition in the Bill. We removed the bar of corporate status which was also one of the matters which concerned them.
We have included within the Bill—I invite hon. Members to read it carefully—a definition of a union membership agreement. The Bill covers the position of the Institute of Journalists. It is not the case that under that definition any


union, be it large or small, is required to have a written document with its name and that of the employer upon it. That has been made clear in Committee, but I make it clear again. A union membership agreement can comprise an arrangement which has existed in industry or in service for a long time, in which one or more unions have in practice represented people employed in a single class of trade or profession. That is precisely the position of the Institute of Journalists.
A number of members of the Institute of Journalists do exactly the same job as do members of the NUJ. In fact, some have a dual membership. Therefore, their position and that of like unions is covered by the Bill's definition of a union membership agreement.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Whilst it is perfectly possible for more than one union to be included, the case which we are postulating is the case when a small union is excluded. The possibility of multi-union agreement which the Minister is now talking about would give no protection to the members of a smaller union in the circumstances that we have postulated. The Minister's argument is utterly irrelevant.

Mr. Brittan: Answer that one.

Mr. Booth: The hon. Member for Rushcliffe either has not reead or does not understand the union membership agreement as defined in the Bill. The definition covers the situation in which more than one union, large or small, which in practice has held membership within an industry or service covering a grade or profession of workers can contend that that situation comprises a membership agreement. We put in the words "agreement or arrangement" to make it clear that there did not need to exist a written agreement specifying particular trade unions. The membership agreement can exist in the absence of such a document.

Mr. Percival: Of course, we know as a matter of definition that there can be a union membership agreement covering two, three, four, five or 15 unions. That is not the point. We want the Minister to address his mind to the situation facing the smaller union. For example, let us suppose that there are two unions and the one which is much stronger than the

other wants to get the membership of the smaller union into its own ranks. Why does the Minister say that the stronger union might not be able to use this provision to the effect that we have postulated? We know about the definition but what we are concerned about is the use that the stronger unions might make of these powers. We ask the Minister to address his mind to that question.

Mr. Brittan: Answer that one.

Mr. Booth: I have no intention of avoiding the question. I shall come to it immediately if it will help Conservative Members. There are two legs to the answer. First, in the situation which the hon. and learned Gentleman has postulated the employer has to agree to create a union membership agreement which recognises only one union.
Secondly, the existence of registration under the 1971 Act made no practical difference. Unions and employers still practise closed shop agreements.
Legal action has rarely been taken in the past to restrain strikes carried out other than in the contemplation of furtherance of a trade dispute and action under this clause would be similarly unlikely. It is difficult in practice to distinguish strikes called for political purposes from those which are in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. There are normally elements of a trade—

It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned:

Ordered,
That the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Harrison.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Booth: His hon. Friend quoted without giving a name, a case which was 30 years old. In his speech he expressed concern from practical experience about a case in which a person had not been put out of a job but had been persuaded, presumably with the help of an old colleague of mine, Gerry Cannon, to join the union and continue working.
The one specific case I have been given is that of Mr. Goad. I can speak with some feeling on that because he and I


shared membership of the AUEW. Mr. Goad temporarily terminated his membership on three occasions after joining the union in March 1972, not by writing to his secretary saying that he wanted to terminate membership but by falling into arrears of contributions. He then came into some difficulty, and when he was called to account by the branch he went to the Industrial Court to sort the matter out. He did not use his union appeals machinery which was open to him.
Mr. Goad pursued his action in the Industrial Court until £50,000 in fines had been slapped on the union. It was only then that the other members of the union with whom he worked objected to his remaining with the firm.
I believe that that is an exceptional case. I would not seek to build law upon it. It does not reflect a great deal of credit on those who seek to make allegations about the way in which we intend to operate the Bill, in respect both of its unfair dismissal procedures and its union membership agreement provisions. to produce only one name in a case that could not be reasonably held to be detrimental to an individual who did not exercise his proper rights of appeal within his union.

Mr. Money: The Minister said earlier that he would deal with the specific point put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). He has not dealt with it. He said that there were two legs to the answer, but he has not answered the question. Will he now address himself to it?

Mr. Booth: The hon. Gentleman may not have understood, but I have answered the question by pointing out quite clearly that in the situation described it is quite possible for union membership protection to operate in respect of the smaller union. We are dealing with a limited area, that of the closed shop, an area which attracted considerable attention by the Donovan Commission. There were many paragraphs about it in the Donovan Report. The commission found that about 3¾ million out of 26 million workers worked in closed shops—that is, post and pre-entry. No Conservative Member has given figures to show how many people would operate in the situation they postulate, the single union

closed shop, which is a very rare institution. Most of the areas covered by the union membership agreement under the Bill would be multiple-union situations.
I am asked whether the provisions were included to drive trade unions into affiliation with the TUC so that they could use the provisions of the Bridlington Agreement to resolve their disputes with other unions. That was not the intention, Whatever may be my own feelings about the Bridlington Agreement and its successes, there was no intention that the provisions of the union membership agreement should favour an affiliated as against a non-affiliated union. It is suggested to us—

Mr. John Loveridge: The Minister says that we are speaking of a limited area, but is it really so limited? Is it not the area of the liberty of the subject? Did the hon. Gentleman satisfy the deputation which he said came to see him that they could be reassured for the future regarding the safety of their jobs and their freedom to speak and to write as they wished?

Mr. Booth: An hon. Member opposite drew attention to the attendance in the Gallery. Journalists approached me on the matter and I replied, to journalists. Following representations by the hon. and learned Member for Southport I acceded on behalf of the Government to the Opposition's amendment to withdraw part of the relevant schedule. That was done in order to meet an objection which I was convinced had validity—that it could disadvantage people in the situation in question.
I do not claim that the matter is now fully settled. One of the three propositions of concern put to me has not been met. That proposition was that a union could instruct its members under the Bill to write in accordance with union policy instead of according to their own unfettered judgment. That matter, I suggest, is not covered by the Bill or by the 1971 Act. I will bow to no one in my concern for the liberty of the subject.
People who join trade unions in this country are as concerned about the liberty of the subject as any members of the Opposition. Trade unions have won considerable rights for their memberships. The majority of those unions are in shops, offices and factories where some people


are members of unions and some are not. We have not reached a stage where we can claim that the majority of people who work are members of unions, and certainly we cannot claim that the majority of workers work in closed shops.
We have not tonight had a case which in any way suggests either that the definition contained in the Bill of a union membership agreement does not accord with the proper exercise of individual union membership or that the provisions in the schedules dealing with unfair dismissal do not entitle people properly to exercise their rights. On that basis, I trust that the House will reject the amendment.

Mr. Prior: This is an important amendment for at least two reasons, and probably for many more. It involves the liberty and freedom of the individual, and could also involve the freedom of the Press. It is remarkable that a debate of this nature has taken place without a single member from the Government back benches taking part. What would have been the situation had a Conservative Government been putting forward the sort of proposal we have been discussing? The Secretary of State would have been standing here regaling us about freedom and about the liberties and rights of the individual. I do not want to provoke Opposition Members to make speeches, but I am surprised that at least one or two hon. Members on the Government side have not expressed anxiety about what the Government are proposing.

Division No. 78.]
AYES
[10.14 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cockcroft, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Braine, Sir Bernard
Cope, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bray, Ronald
Cordle, John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Brewis, John
Cormack, Patrick


Ancram, M.
Brittan, Leon
Corrie, John


Archer, Jeffrey
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Costain, A. P.


Atkins, Rt.Hn. Humphrey (Speithorne)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crouch, David


Awdry, Daniel
Bruce-Gardyne J.
Crowder, F. P.


Baker, Kenneth
Bryan, Sir Paul
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Buchanan-Smith. Allck
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj -Gen James


Banks, Robert
Buck, Anthony
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Budgen, Nick
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Beith, A. J.
Bulmer, Esmond
Dixon, Piers


Bell, Ronald
Burden, F. A.
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Carlisle, Mark
Drayson, Burnaby


Benyon, W.
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Chalker. Mrs. Lynda
Durant, Tony


Biffen, John
Channon, Paul
Dykes, Hugh


Biggs-Davison, John
Churchill, W. S.
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Blaker, Peter
Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Emery, Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Body, Richard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Elliott, Sir William


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Clegg, Walter
Eyre, Reginald

I quote from one of the many letters we have received:
The implications of this legislation are very serious in the case of newspapers. You will understand that if one journalists' trade union is able by means of industrial pressure to secure a union membership agreement in newspaper offices it will be able to deny employment and expression to those who do not support it.

The Minister argued that there could be more than one union membership agreement, but if one union—in this case the National Union of Journalists—is very powerful it can demand of the proprietors that it is to be the specified union for the membership union agreement. Once it has done that it can drive out everyone else. We should not tolerate the strong unions being able to dominate the weaker ones. Our amendment would help to make that impossible

My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) made it clear that he was in favour of journalists joining trade unions. However, he would not tolerate, and he did not think his profession would tolerate, a situation in which they were made to join a particular union. I believe that the Liberal Party shares our view that it would be intolerable to leave the Bill in its present form. I hope that the House will support this amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 291.

Fairgrieve, Russell
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Farr, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.W.)


Fell, Anthony
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fidler, Michael
Lamont, Norman
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lane, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.E.)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Tim


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford&amp;Stone)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Freud, Clement
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)


Fry, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Shersby, Michael


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
McCrindle, R. A.
Silvester, Fred


Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
MacGregor, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
McLaren, Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian(Ch'sh' &amp; Amsh'm)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'm'ngton)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Spence, John


Goodhart, Philip
Madel, David
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)


Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Goodlad, A.
Mather, Carol
Sproat, Iain


Gorst, John
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mawby, Ray
Stanley, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Steel, David


Gray, Hamish
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)


Grieve, Percy
Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridge Wells)
Stewart, Ian (Hichin)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Stokes, John


Grist, Ian
Mills, Peter
Stradling Thomas, John


Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Peter


Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taverne, Dick


Hall, Sir John
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, C'cart)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Money, Ernie
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Tebbit, Norman


Hannam, John
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net.H'dn S.)


Hastings, Stephen
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Havers, Sir Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Townsend, C. D.


Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Trotter, Neville


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mudd, David
Tugendhat, Christopher


Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Neave, Airey
Tyler, Paul


Heseltine, Michael
Neubert, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Higgins, Terence
Newon, Tony (Braintree)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Holland, Philip
Nott, John
Viggers, Peter


Hooson, Emlyn
Onslow, Cranley
Waddington, David


Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)
Osborn, John
Wakeham, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Howels, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pardoe, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hunt, John
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)
Wall, Patrick


Hurd, Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Warren, Kenneth


Iremonger, T. L.
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Weatherill, Bernard


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wells, John


James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dgeW'std &amp; W'fd)
Prior, Rt. Hn. James
Wiggin, Jerry


Jessel, Toby
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wlnterton, Nicholas


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rathbone, Tim
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Jopling, Michael
Redmond, Robert
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Younger, Hn. George


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H'f gd'ns're)



Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Barnet, Guy (Greenwich)
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Allaun, Frank
Barnett, Joel (Hey wood &amp; Royton)
Boardman, H.


Archer, Peter
Bates, Alf
Booth, Albert


Armstrong, Ernest
Baxter, William
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Atkins, Ronald
Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)


Atkinson, Norman
Bidwell, Sydney
Bradley, Tom


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bishop, E. S.
Broughton, Sir Alfred

Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
Hamling, William
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Gordon


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'ditch)
Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Malley, Brian


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)
Hatton, Frank
Orbach, Maurice


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Ovenden, John


Campbell, Ian
Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Dr. David


Cant, R. B.
Hooley, Frank
Padley, Walter


Carmichael, Neil
Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur


Carter, Ray
Howell, Denis ((B'ham, Small Heath)
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Huckfield, Leslie
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parry, Robert


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cocks, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Pendry, Tom


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest G.


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Phipps, Dr. Colin


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I. Edgehill)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Conlan, Bernard
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Prescott, John


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Jackson, Colin
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)


Cox, Thomas
Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Jay, Rt Hn. Douglas
Radice, Giles


Crawshaw, Richard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Reid, George


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cryer, G. R.
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cunningham, G.(Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F's' b'ry)
Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cunningham, Dr John A.(Whiteh'v'n)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Judd, Frank
Roper, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Edward


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Kinnock, Neil
Sandelson, Neville


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Sedgemore, Bryan


Delargy, Hugh
Lamborn, Harry
Selby, Harry


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lamond, James
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Dempsey, James
Latham, Arthur(City of W'minster P'ton)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney &amp; P'plar)


Dormand, J. D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lee, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Sillars, James


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Edge, Geoff
Lipton, Marcus
Skinner, Dennis


Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Loughlin, Charles
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Loyden, Eddie
Snape, Peter


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spearing, Nigel


Ennals, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradlord, W.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.


Evans, Ioan (Aberdeen)
MacCormack, Iain
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fuh'm)


Evans, John Newton)
McElhone, Frank
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Ewlng, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)




Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael
Stott, Roger


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Flannery, Martin
McNamara, Kevin
Swain, Thomas


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Madden, M. O. F.
Thomas, D E. (Merioneth)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mahon, Simon
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tlerney, Sydney


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Marquand, David
Tomlinson, John


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Tomney, Frank


Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Torney, Tom


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Garrelt, John (Norwich, S.)
Mendelson, John
Urwin, T. W.


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


George, Bruce
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Golding, John
Molloy, William
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Gourlay, Harry
Moonman, Eric
Watklns, David


Graham, Ted
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watt, Hamish


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Moyle, Roland
White, James


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Murray, Ronald King
Whitlock, William

Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)



Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge)
Wise, Mrs. Audrey
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Woof, Robert
Mr. Walter Johnson.

The numbers being equal—

Mr. Speaker: I now have the novel duty of exercising a casting vote. Fortunately or not, I have to do it entirely according to precedent. I must vote for the Bill as it came from Committee. For a change in the Bill, there must be a substantive majority. I therefore cast my vote against the amendment.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 28

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 24, line 29, leave out from '1957' to 'or' in line 30 and insert:
'the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc.) Act (Northern Ireland) 1965, the Insurance Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 or the Insurance Companies Amendment Act 1973'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Division No. 79.]
AYES
[10.25p.m.


Adley, Robert
Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Cope, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Braine, Sir Bernard
Cordle, John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bray, Ronald
Cormack, Patrick


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brewis, John
Corrie, John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Brittan, Leon
Costain, A. P.


Ancram, M.
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Crouch, David


Archer, Jeffrey
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crowder, F. P.


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Awdry, Daniel
Bryan, Sir Paul
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James


Baker, Kenneth
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Buck, Antony
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Banks, Robert
Budgen, Nick
Dixon, Piers


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bulmer, Esmond
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas


Beith, A. J.
Burden, F. A.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Bell, Ronald
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Drayson, Burnaby


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Carlisle, Mark
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Durart, Tony


Benyon, W.
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Dykes, Hugh


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Channon, Paul
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Biffen, John
Churchill, W. S.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Elliot, Sir William


Blaker, Peter
Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Emery, Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Eyre, Reginald


Body, Richard
Clegg, Walter
Fairgrieve, Russell


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Cockcroft, John
Fair, John


Bowdan, Andrew (Brighton Kemptown)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Fell, Anthony

Schedule 1

RE-ENACTED PROVISIONS OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1971

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 25, leave out paragraph 1 (General Principles).

No. 24, in page 25, line 29, leave out 'specified in paragraph 1(1) above' and insert:
'of promoting good industrial relations'.

No. 25, in page 27, line 6, leave out 'Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below,'.

No. 26, in page 27, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (5).—[Mr. Booth.]

Amendment proposed: No. 96, in page 27 leave out lines 35 to 43 and insert:
'(a) it is the practice in accordance with a union membership agreement, for all the employees of this employer or all employees of the said class as the dismissed employee to belong to independent trade unions; and
(b) the reason for the dismissal was that the employee was not a member of an appropriate independent trade union and had refused or proposed to refuse to become or remain a member of such a trade union'.—[Mr. Percival.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 291.

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fidler, Michael
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Knox, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lane, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fox, Marcus
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Freud, Clement
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Tim


Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
MacArthur, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
McCrindle, R. A.
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)


Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' &amp; Amsh'm)
Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


Glyn, Dr. Alan
McLaren, Martin
Sims, Roger


Goodhart, Philip
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Goodlad, A.
McNalr-Wilson, Patrick (New Forset)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gorst, John
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'm'ngton)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mather, Carol
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maude, Angus
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Gray, Hamish
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sproat, Iain


Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray
Stainton, Keith


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)
Stanley, John


Grist, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridge Wells)
Steel, David


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)


Gurden, Harold
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hall, Sir John
Mills, Peter
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman
Stokes, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stradling, Thomas John


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Peter


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Money, Ernie
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)


Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hastings, Stephen
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Tebbit, Norman


Havers, Sir Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hawkins, Paul
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Hayhoe, Barney
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thorpe, Rt. Hon. Jeremy


Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Townsend, C. D.


Heseltine, Michael
Mudd, David
Trotter, Neville


Higgins, Terence
Neave, Airey
Tugendhat, Christopher


Holland, Philip
Neubert, Michael
Tyler, Paul


Hooson, Emlyn
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hordern, Peter
Nott, John
Viggers, Peter


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)
Onslow, Cranley
Waddington, David


Howell, Ralph (Guildford)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Osborn, John
Wakeham, John


Howels, Geraint (Cardigan)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Walder, David (Clltheroe)


Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hurd, Dougas
Pardoe, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)
Wall, Patrick


Iremonger, T. L.
Pattie, Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival Ian
Warren, Kenneth


James, David
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Weatherill, Bernard


Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dgeW'std &amp; W'fd)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wells, John


Jessel, Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hon. William


Josnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Prior, Rt. Hn. James
Wiggin, Jerry


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Winterton, Nicholas


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Raison, Timothy
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Jopling, Michael
Rathbone, Tim
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmond, Robert
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Younger, Hn. George


Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't' gd' ns' re)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kimball, Marcus
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
Mr. Spencer le Marchant and


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Dr. Gerald Vaughn.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Booth, Albert


Allaun, Frank
Bates, Alf
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Archer, Peter
Baxter, William
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Bradley, Tom


Atkins, Ronald
Bidwell, Sydney
Broughton, Sir Alfred


Atkinson, Norman
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Boardman, H.
Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'ditch)

Buchan, Norman
Hardy, Peter
Ogden, Eric


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael


Butler, Mrs.Joyce (H' gey, WoodGreen)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Malley, Brian


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Hatton, Frank
Orbach, Maurice


Campbell, Ian
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Ovenden, John


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Dr. David


Carmichael, Neil
Hooley, Frank
Padley, Walter


Carter, Ray
Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Huckfield, Leslie
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Perry, Robert


Cocks, Michael
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Pendry, Tom


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest G.


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Hunter, Adam
Phipps, Dr. Colin


Conlan, Bernard
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I, EdgeHI)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Prescott, John


Cox, Thomas
Jackson, Colin
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Radice, Giles


Cronin, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Reid, George


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cryer, G. R.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'ffd)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)


Cunningham, Dr. John A.(whiteh'v'n)
Johnson, James (K'ston-upon Hull, W)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Jonas, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Roper, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Edward


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kinnock, Neil
Sandelson, Neville


Delargy, Hugh
Lambie, David
Sedgemore, Bryan


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lamborn, Harry
Selby, Harry


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P'ton)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dormand, J. D.
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney &amp; P'plar)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lee John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Dunn, James A.
Lester, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham.D'ford)


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Sillars, James


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Edge, Geoff
Lipton, Marcus
Skinner, Dennis


Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Loughlin, Charles
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Loyden, Eddie
Snape, Peter


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spearing, Nigel


Ennals, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
MacCormack, Iain
Stewart, R. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


Evans, John (Newton)
McElhone, Frank
Stoddart, David


Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ewing, Mrs.Winifred (Moray &amp; Narn)
McGuire, Michael
Stott, Roger


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McNamara, Kevin
Swain, Thomas


Flannery, Martin
Madden, M. O. F.
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tierney, Sydney


Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Forrester, John
Marquand, David
Tomlinson, John


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Tomney, Frank


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Meacher, Michael
Torney, Tom


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, John
Urwin, T. W.


Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


George, Bruce
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ginsburg, David
Molloy, William
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, David


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watt, Hamish


Graham, Ted
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Moyle, Roland
White, James


Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Ronald King
Whitlock, William


Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Hamling, William
Oakes, Gordon
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)



Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge)
Wise, Mrs. Audrey
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Woof, Robert
Mr. Walter Johnson.


Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian



Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Hayhoe: I beg to move Amendment No. 86, in page 27, line 44, at end insert 'or conscience'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 87, in page 27, line 44, at end insert:
'or as a matter of deeply held personal conviction'.
No. 88, in page 27, line 45, leave out 'and trade union whatsoever' and insert:
'that union or one of those unions'.
No. 66, in page 27, line 45, at end insert:
'or on any reasonable grounds to being a member of a particular trade union'.
Order. Will hon. Members who wish to withdraw from the Chamber do so quietly and quickly and conduct their conversations outside.

Mr. Hayhoe: Amendment No. 86 covers an extremely important point, as did the previous amendment. We debated the point in Committee and arrived at a tied vote. Therefore, it is right that we should consider it again on Report.
As the Bill stands it makes the provision under which someone may opt out of a union membership agreement the very narrow one of religious grounds. In choosing those words the Government have clearly selected the most narrow interpretation possible. The Donovan Commission looked into this matter with considerable care and very properly said that grounds of religious view should be taken into account. But Donovan also went wider than that and indicated that the grounds ought to be religious or conscientious—seeing, therefore, a wider definition of the word "conscientious" than that purely of religious belief. In the context of unfair dismissal the Donovan Report used the phrase "other reasonable grounds."
With this series of amendments we should certainly meet the overall Donovan position. Putting Amendments No. 86 and 66 together with the existing provisions of this part of the schedule, we arrive at a wrap-around of the total position which Donovan suggested.
In matters as important as safeguarding the liberty and freedom of the individual—which are involved in these

amendments—within the closed shop provision, it is right that we should discuss this matter. When we come to vote I hope that we shall be able to carry the amendments. I also hope that it will be noted outside the House that on the previous series of amendments, which alas we failed to carry, hon. Members from the Scottish National Party seemed to continue to vote as mere appendages of the Labour Party on this issue.
In Committee one hon. Member from the Scottish National Party made one speech on one occasion. On that occasion, on the vote that we had in Committee, he voted against the Government. That was on the question of the Code of Practice. That amendment was carried. I am not sure what happened after that vote, but from that moment onwards the hon. Member in question was totally silent in Committee and he clearly took a nod from the Labour Whip as to how he should vote.
10.45 p.m.
As regards the proceedings on Report, let it be quite clear that the Scottish Nationalists have voted with the Government in order to improve the position of the strong and to make sure that protections and immunities for the strong are maintained, whereas the safeguards for the weak are being eroded. On the issue that we were discussing earlier concerning the choice between the strong and the weak union in a closed shop situation, again as far as one can judge the Scottish Nationalists voted in the same direction. As we approach the concluding provisions in the Bill, let us hope that they revert to the good habits with which they started and that they vote with the Opposition in defence of matters which are worth while instead of following behind the Government like poodles.
I hope that this amendment will commend itself to hon. Members on the Government side. Certainly it is the practice among many unions in a closed shop situation to allow their potential members to have a wider freedom of dissent than is permitted by the Government in the Bill. I have met constituency cases in the past where unions have rightly and properly operated an arrangement recognising conscientious objection to union membership in a closed shop situation, when the grounds were wider than the


narrow grounds of religious belief. One could argue that one would be following good union practice in widening the grounds to include the words "or conscience". Also, it would be right that in the unfair dismissal provisions we should follow the clear recommendations of Donovan that there should be "other reasonable grounds" apart from those of conscience and religious belief for objecting to membership of a specified union in a closed shop situation.
I therefore commend in particular Amendment No. 86, as well as Amendment No. 66 in the name of the Leader of the Liberal Party and his hon. Friends. Those two amendments would be a very good combination to get into the Bill. Amendment No. 87 is covered by Amendment No. 66, although I know that Labour Members have an attachment to the phrase.
or as a matter of deeply help personal conviction
In fact, that phrase is taken from the Parliamentary Labour Party's constitution.
I believe that the situation would be covered by the acceptance of Amendments Nos. 86 and 66. They would give proper protection to the individual.

Mr. Booth: The provision under discussion enables an employee who genuinely objects on grounds of religious belief to being a member of a trade union to remain within the provisions of the clause which covers union membership and to be protected against unfair dismissal in that situation. The amendments seek to extend the provision beyond the admittedly narrow grounds of religious belief. It therefore falls to me to defend the situation in the Bill in which we make a pure and clear distinction between objections because of religious belief and on any other grounds.
We believe that there are deeply-held religious beliefs which are inexplicable to other people. They are based on precepts of faith which can be tested only by those who possess that faith. If in a civilised society we cannot respect that as being something peculiar to the individual, we are going against the traditions of many generations in which people have fought for the recognition of their right to practise and work in accordance with their own religious beliefs. We do not believe that in the Bill we should ask

any of those who hold this religious belief to explain it to the satisfaction of their fellow workers of the union, but we believe that they should be allowed to practise in accordance with it.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I make no apology for reverting to the subject of the Press. I speak as someone who has been and occasionally still is a journalist, and I address my remarks directly to the Secretary of State in the hope that possibly he will understand what the argument is all about, because it is evident that the Minister of State failed to do so.
We used to believe that the Secretary of State cared about liberty. He used to quote from time to time the words of Rainborowe about the position of the "poorest he", and he will recall the works of Milton in "Areopagitica".
Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.
What the Government are proposing in the Bill is
Give me the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties",
subject only to Schedule 1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill.
The truth is that conscience is a vital part of freedom. The Minister of State said that there was a mysterious religious factor which no one else seemed to be able to understand which justified exemption. I agree. It is correct that religion should feature in this question, but it is equally essential that conscience should feature too. The hon. Gentleman may not understand that conscience is a deeply-held belief which people hold, but it is a vital part of journalism today. I know journalists to whom the whole principle of the closed shop is a denial of liberty. In many newspapers there is in effect a closed shop to the extent at least of the choice between trade unions, but to some journalists this position is anathema and it is entirely wrong that it should be reinforced by law.
We have already seen the growth of political action for avowedly political ends, and the Bill is likely to increase the probability of this happening in journalism. The conscience safeguard is vital if unions are not to say that only certain sorts of people are able to work on a particular publication


and put forward their views and if we are not to risk a diminution of free speech. Freedom of speech embraces freedom of conscience, and if we pass a Bill which writes out freedom of conscience we are denying freedom of speech and denying attitudes which the Secretary of State has so often put forward in the House.

Mr. Tom King: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) although I appreciate the view that the Minister of State has so fairly put forward. I can appreciate the pressures that are on him. This is an embarrassing, awkward and tiresome amendment. It would be much easier in union affairs if exemptions could be kept to the narrowest possible grounds.
I appreciate, having worked in industry and worked closely with unions, that there are people who will abuse and exploit such a provision. There are those who do not hold genuine convictions and who will try to swing the lead. I know that exemptions are often a great inconvenience to fathers of chapels, shop stewards and branch secretaries and that they can cause enormous disturbance. I recognise that there are trouble-makers in every activity. At the same time, the points that my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury and for Brentford and Isle-worth (Mr. Hayhoe) have made merit serious consideration.
Perhaps insufficient emphasis was given to the point that if Labour Members consider it right to recognise deeply-held personal convictions, and if it is right for themselves to hold such convictions, everybody else should have that right. We respect that there is such a clause in the constitution of the Parliamentary Labour Party. I think all hon. Members will consider that that is right, but if it is right for Labour Members why is it not right for union members as well?
We live in a not very religious age. Men live by many faiths, some of which are not traditional religious faiths in the strictest and narrowest sense of the word. However, I think that the House should recognise deeply-held personal convictions. While this exemption will be awkward, while it will increase prob

lems for branch secretaries and union officials, while it may increase difficulties in branches and while there are those who will try to exploit it, I believe that the House should support the amendment in the interest of people who honestly hold certain views.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I support Amendment No. 66. I shall be brief because the amendment is self-explanatory. I shall make three short points. First, men of conscience may or may not be men of religion. It is possible to be an atheist yet still be a man of conscience. I take the view, as do my hon. Friends, that the clause as it stands, on the basis of religious belief, is not in itself sufficiently wide to cover all cases. We take the view that any man, whether or not he is a person of religious belief, should be protected against unfair dismissal for non-membership of a union.
Secondly, we take the view that a man may prefer to belong to one union as opposed to another. Amendment No. 66 simply states that a man may belong to any particular union rather than be required to join a particular union. That is the substance of the amendment. It strikes me as being perfectly reasonable and rational. I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept it in the spirit in which it is moved.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: I rise to draw the attention of the House to the rather strange grounds the Minister selected for asking the House to reject the amendment. He said that religious grounds alone were incapable of explanation to a man's fellow workers or to anyone else. If I misunderstood him I hope that he will correct me, but I understood him to say clearly that religious grounds were those which somehow picked themselves out as being alone incapable of explanation to other people. That seems very odd.

Mr. Booth: If I did not make the position clear, I apologise. The point I was trying to make was that to test the precepts of certain religions one must possess the faith.

Mr. Peyton: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think he has helped himself very much by that intervention. Are any of us capable of drawing a hard line to distinguish


between religious belief and conscience? Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament I have frequently heard the suggestion from the Labour Party that conscience was important, something that held a high place in socialist thinking but which on the whole the Conservative Party was alleged not to take so seriously.
How can the Minister possibly distinguish between conscience and religious belief simply by asserting that religious belief is inexplicable to other people, presumably claiming that conscience is immediately explicable? I believe—[Interruption.] I have all the time in the world. The very refreshing change that you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are enjoying tonight is that for the first time during the debate on this Bill, so crucial to the Government party, the Government benches are occupied—partially. I am not suggesting—because that would be to distort the truth—that those benches look nicer as they are now.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: rose—

Mr. Peyton: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

Mr. Bidwell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would give way in a moment, and it will help us all if we speak one at a time.

Mr. Peyton: I thank you most cordially, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that excellent advice. May I express the sincere hope that I was not the only one who heard it. Now I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bidwell: I am much obliged. The right hon. Gentleman, who as Minister responsible for transport could not even go so far as to exempt Sikhs from wearing crash helmets when riding motor cycles, is in no position to sermonise to the House tonight.

Mr. Peyton: It is absolutely fascinating to hear that sort of observation from the hon. Gentleman. You have far more experience in this respect than I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I find that few interventions in the House, particularly at this hour of the night, ever reflect credit upon those who make them. The hon. Gentle

man's skill at casting a net and gathering in some stinking old red herring is almost unrivalled, even in this place. [Interruption.] An hon. Gentleman opposite refers to closing time. He had better hurry up, otherwise he will be too late. His remark suggests that his interest is far nearer matters of liquid sustenance than matters of conscience.
Before I was interrupted I was about to say that we have here a Government—supported by the Labour Party which has always made so much of matters of conscience—who are to ask the House to reject this modest and moderate amendment. I do not believe the trade union movement to be so weak a force that it need be frightened of people being given a loophole through which they can escape from compulsory membership because their conscience leads them to believe it to be wrong.

Mr. John Gorst: The Government's attitude in this matter is inconsistent, unethical and in short, tyrannical. When we first enter this House we are allowed either to affirm or to take the oath, depending on which way our conscience lies. We are given the same choice in a court of law. Why should the trade union movement be any different in its constitution in this respect from Parliament or from courts of law? I leave that thought with the Secretary of State.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Before the terms of the Bill were published there was a rumour in the Press that trade unionists were to be denied rights of conscience. I received a number of letters on this matter, and I was assured by the Department that when the Bill was published my correspondents would find that they had nothing to fear. They now know that they have everything to fear. I strongly support the amendment and I particularly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said. He knows very well what he is talking about. How sadly the Secretary of State has fallen from his pristine grace.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: This is a vital subject and I do not apologise for detaining the House for a few minutes, even at this late hour. Anyone who has seen great factories made idle—as


Members for Coventry constituencies have seen—when individuals have opted out of trade union membership, sometimes for purposes which under the mask of conscience are really political calculations, will recognise the importance of trying to define exactly the frontier between those with a genuine conscience, which is capable of being measured by an objective criterion, and those who simply use the plea of conscience to try to disguise an ulterior motive.
That is why it is important that we should support the Government's position. They have tried to seek some sort of institutional criteria by which to measure the sincerity of those who seek to opt out of this provision. Obviously we can achieve only a rough-and-ready solution. I believe that the definition of religion as the measurement of conscience is one that is measurable and definable. It can be related to certain objective standards.
To that extent it is appropriate for the Government to include the word "religion" in the clause. It is true that we are operating in a metaphysical region where we cannot really measure the subjective justification of those who plead the cause of religion to justify themselves in opting out. When we come to conscience, which is unrelated to religious matters, we are in the region of calculation, and when examined this calculation almost always tends to boil down to political considerations and purposes. The Governments are right to draw the frontier between the objective criteria of religion and those other considerations which are calculations and, worse than which have brought great factories in that, political calculations of a kind which have brought great factories in Coventry to a standstill, which have resulted in great misery and which in this case would wholly frustrate the object of the Bill.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Member is a well-known journalist. I put it to him that in the case of journalism there is a special importance in these words and the idea of conscience. It is part of free speech. Surely we can accept there is something extremely important here.

Mr. Edelman: Obviously I accept the point that conscience is something with

which we are all concerned and, therefore, we must take account of it. In this context it seems that the amendment proposes a method by which political calculations can enter into judgment, and therefore it is not suitable for the Bill.

Mr. David Mitchell: It seems that the great trade union movement, 10 million to 11 million strong, does not need to reject the amendment and harry the odd individual into being compelled to join a union in a closed shop situation. I do not believe that the movement will gain from having conscripts rather than volunteers. In the long run it will do itself more good if it can prove by the service it renders that it is worth while joining than by compelling people to join against their will.
The Labour Government of 1948 signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is one thing for a Government to sign an international charter and not to alter its legislation to conform to it at the time. It is a quite different thing for a Government subsequently to introduce legislation in defiance of the highest international standards of conduct in human affairs. The reality is that the Universal Declaration states that no man shall be forced to join an organisation against his will. The Government have the opportunity to accept the amendment and put the provisions of the declaration into effect. The House has the right to call on the Minister to do so on those grounds alone.
11.15 p.m.
I listened to the poor speech delivered by the Under-Secretary of State—which was in contrast to the many good speeches he has made—in which he gave his explanation of the difference between religion and conscience. He said that a peculiar and special characteristic of religion was that it was inexplicable and was within a person. But that also applies to conscience. If it does not, why does not the Labour Party's constitution provide that a Member shall not be compelled to vote in a Division against his religious beliefs instead of providing that a Member shall not be compelled to vote in a Division against his conscience? Why should not that same criterion apply to trade unionists as well as to Members of the House?
The Government have a difficult choice to make in dealing with the closed shop. They could have accepted the amendment which we pressed yesterday and which provided for the rules of a trade union to be such that no man could object on ground of conscience to joining a union, or they could allow a man to opt out on the ground of conscience. The Government have refused to make a choice. I hope, therefore, that they will accept this moderate amendment, but it would have been better had they accepted the amendment which we moved yesterday.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman) said that religion was the only acceptable ground for not belonging to a trade union, on the basis that the religious stand was objective. On the other hand, the Minister of State said that religion was the only acceptable ground for not belonging to a trade union because religion was inexplicable except to the believer. There seems to be confusion between those two definitions.
In view of those two definitions, is it enough for a person simply to state, without explanation and without identifying his religion, "I object on religious grounds"? If it is, why do the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and the Government object to going one step further and allowing the man to say "My conscience leads me to object"?
If a man does not have to explain his religious grounds because they are inexplicable, the Minister is making a great fuss about nothing and is trying to defend the indefensible by putting his projudices against the freedoms which the Opposition are setking to preserve.

Mr. Brittan: Two objections have been put forward to conscience as a criterion for refusal to be a member of a trade union. The first is that, unlike religion, conscience may be explicable. The second is that it is an unworkable criterion. If that is so, why has it been possible for 50 years for men to refuse to engage in military service on the ground of conscience and why is it regarded as objectionable that a man should decline to join a trade union on the ground of conscience? If in time of war, when the country is fighting for its life, a man

may say, not on the ground of inexplicable religion but on the ground of humanistic conscience, "I will not fight, I will not bear arms", why cannot a man in time of peace say on the ground of conscience "I refuse to join a trade union"?

Mr. Waddington: I must take issue with what the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman) said about factories being made idle because of the activities of people who were not prepared to join unions. Far more often it would be correct to say that factories have been made idle because of an intolerant attitude to a dissenter.
It is shocking that Labour Members are seeking to encourage an intolerant attitude. It has been their attitude throughout the proceedings on the Bill that those who will not go along with the majority must be persecuted. That cannot be right. Surely it is in the interests of the great trade unions of the land that they should be magnanimous. If they are magnanimous—and the unions are strong now, not weak, and are well able to be magnanimous—they will attract more rather than less public support; they will have more influence in work-places rather than less. I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept this simple amendment to extend the rights of the individual rather than limit them further.

Mr. Prior: This is a simple amendment and should surely be given universal support in all parts of the House. However, the lack of Government support is symptomatic of their attitude during the last two days. They have not been prepared to listen to any of the reasonable arguments which we have advanced.
We in this country are in a situation in which we need to have greater national unity and purpose than we have had perhaps at any time since the war. But we find the present minority Government not even prepared to help us on a matter of conscience. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friends will divide the House in support of the amendment.

Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I appeal to you that on such an important matter as an issue of conscience we should at least


have a reply from the Secretary of State, who is a man known for his conscience—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the occupant of the Chair to decide who shall speak—at least, not to say who must speak.

Mr. Raison: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not all to evident

Division No. 80.]
AYES
[11.22 p.m.


Adley, Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std &amp; W'fd)


Aitken, Jonathan
Durant, Tony
Jessel, Toby


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dykes, Hugh
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Ancram, M.
Elliott, Sir William
Jopling, Michael


Archer, Jeffrey
Emery, Peter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Eyre, Reginald
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Awdry, Daniel
Fairgrieve, Russell
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Baker, Kenneth
Farr, John
Kershaw, Anthony


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Loro
Fell, Anthony
Kimball, Marcus


Banks, Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fidler, Michael
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Beith, A. J.
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Bell, Ronald
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
Knox, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lamont, Norman


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lane, David


Biffen, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Fox, Marcus
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Blaker, Peter
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lawrence, Ivan


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Freud, Clement
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)


Body, Richard
Fry, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' &amp; Amsh'm)
Loveridge, John


Bray, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
MacArthur, Ian


Brewis, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McCrindle, R. A.


Brittan, Leon
Goodhart, Philip
Macfarlane, Neil


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Goodhew, Victor
MacGregor, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodlad, A.
McLaren, Martin


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gorst, John
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Buck, Antony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Madel, David


Budgen, Nick
Gray, Hamish
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bulmer, Esmond
Grieve, Percy
Mather, Carol


Burden, F. A.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maude, Angus


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grist, Ian
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald



Grylls, Michael
Mawby, Ray


Carlisle, Mark
Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hall, Sir John
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridge Wells)


Channon, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hannam, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)


Churchill, W. S.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Peter


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss
Miscampbell, Norman


Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Havers, Sir Michael
Moate, Roger


Cockcroft, John
Hawkins, Paul
Money, Ernie


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector


Cope, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)


Cordle, John
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Cormack, Patrick
Higgins, Terence
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Corrie, John
Holland, Philip
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)


Costain, A. P.
Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Crouch, David
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)


Crowder, F. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Mudd, David


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Neave, Airey


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Neubert, Michael


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hunt, John
Newton, Tony (Braintree)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hurd, Douglas
Nott, John


Dixon, Piers
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow, Cranley


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Iremonger, T. L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborn, John


Drayson, Burnaby
James, David
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

that conscience doth make cowards of them all?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is very much to be deprecated when hon. Members raise points of order for the purpose of poltical arguments.

Question put, That the amendment be amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 286.

Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Townsend, C. D.


Pardoe, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Trotter, Neville


Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Pattie, Geoffrey
Shersby, Michael
Tyler, Paul


Percival, Ian
Silvester, Fred
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Sims, Roger
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Pink, R. Bonner
Sinclair, Sir George
Viggers, Peter


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Waddington, David


Prior, Rt. Hn. James
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Raison, Timothy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'm'ngton)
Wakeham, John


Rathbone, Tim
Spence, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Redmond, Robert
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Sproat, Iain
Wall, Patrick


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't' gd' ns' re)
Stainton, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren, Kenneth


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stanley, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Ridsdale, Julian
Steel, David
Wells, John


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stokes, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stradling Thomas, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tapsell, Peter
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)
Tebbit, Norman
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Sainsbury, Tim
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)
Mr. W. Benyon and


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)


Allaun, Frank
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamling, William


Archer, Peter
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hardy, Peter


Armstrong, Ernest
Deakins, Eric
Harper, Joseph


Ashton, Joe
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Atkins, Ronald
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Atkinson, Norman
Delargy, Hugh
Hatton, Frank


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dempsey, James
Heffer, Eric S.


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Dormand, J. O.
Hooley, Frank


Bates, Alf
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Horam, John


Baxter, William
Duffy, A. E. P.
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunn, James A.
Huckfield, Leslie


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bishop, E. S.
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boardman, H.
Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Hunter, Adam


Booth, Albert
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I. EdgeHl)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
English, Michael
Jackson, Colin


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Ennals, David
Janner, Greville


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
Evans, John (Newton)
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S.&amp;Sh'ditch)
Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk&amp;G'm'th)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)


Buchan, Norman
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
John, Brynmor


Butler, Mrs.Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)
Faulds, Andrew
Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Campbell, Ian
Fitch. Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cant, R. B.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Carmichael, Neil
Flannery, Martin
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Carter, Ray
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Judd, Frank


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kelley, Richard


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Kerr, Russell


Clemilson, Ivor
Ford, Ben
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cocks, Michael
Forrester, John
Kinnock, Neil


Cohen, Stanley
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Lambie, David


Coleman, Donald
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Lamborn, Harry


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Freeson, Reginald
Lamond, James


Conlan, Bernard
Galpern, Sir Myer
Latham, Arthur(City of W'minster P'ton)


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)


Cox, Thomas
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Leadbitter, Ted


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
George, Bruce
Lee, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Cronin, John
Ginsburg, David
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Golding, John
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)


Cryer, G. R.
Gourlay, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Graham, Ted
Lipton, Marcus


Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lomas, Kenneth


Dalyell, Tam
Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Loughlin, Charles


Davidson, Arthur
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Pendry, Tom
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


McCartney, Hugh
Perry, Ernest G.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


McElhone, Frank
Phipps, Dr. Colin
Swain, Thomas


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


McGuire, Michael
Prescott, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Maclennan, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Tierney, Sydney


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Radice, Giles
Tinn, James


McNamara, Kevin
Reid, George
Tomlinson, John


Madden, M. O. F.
Richardson, Miss Jo
Tomney, Frank


Magee, Bryan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Torney, Tom


Mahon, Simon
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tuck, Raphael


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Urwin, T. W.


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Marquand, David
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Marshall, Or. Edmund (Goole)
Rooker, J. W.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Meacher, Michael
Roper, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rose, Paul B.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mendelson, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Watkins, David


Mikardo, Ian
Rowlands, Edward
Watt, Hamish


Millan, Bruce
Sandelson, Neville
Weitzman, David


Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Sedgemore, Bryan
Wellbeloved, James


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Selby, Harry
White, James


Molloy, William
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Moonman, Eric
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Whitlock, William


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&amp;P'plar)
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Moyle, Roland
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C.(S'hwark, Dulwich)
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge)


Murray, Ronald King
Sillars, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Oakes, Gordon
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Ogden, Eric
Small, William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


O'Halloran, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


O'Malley, Brian
Snape, Peter
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Orbach, Maurice
Spearing, Nigel
Woof, Robert


Ovenden, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Owen, Dr. David
Stallard, A. W.
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Padley, Walter
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)



Palmer, Arthur
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Mr. Walter Johnson and


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stott, Roger
Mr. Laurie Pavitt.


Parry, Robert
Strang, Gavin

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 27, line 45, after 'whatsoever', insert
', in which case the dismissal shall be regarded as unfair'.—[Mr. Michael Foot.]

Amendment proposed: No. 66, in page 27, line 45, at end insert

Division No. 81.]
AYES
[11.35 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bray, Ronald
Cormack, Patrick


Aitken, Jonathan
Brewis, John
Corrie, John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brittan. Leon
Costain, A. P.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Crouch, David


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crowder, F. P.


Ancram, M.
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Archer, Jeffrey
Bryan, Sir Paul
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj,-Gen. James


Atkins, Rt.Hn.Humphrey(Spelthorne)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Awdry, Daniel
Buck, Antony
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Baker, Kenneth
Budgen, Nick
Dixon, Piers


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Bulmer, Esmond
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas


Banks, Robert
Burden, F. A.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Drayson, Burnaby


Beith, A. J.
Carlisle, Mark
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bell, Ronald
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Durant, Tony


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, W.
Channon, Paul
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Biffen, John
Churchill, W. S.
Elliott, Sir William


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Emery, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Eyre, Reginald


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Body, Richard
Clegg, Walter
Farr, John


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Cockcroft, John
Fell, Anthony


Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, [...].)
Cope, John
Fidler, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cordle, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey

'or on any reasonable grounds to being a member of a particular trade unon'.—[Mr. Cyril Smith.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 283.

Fisher, Sir Nigel
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
Knox, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lane, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fox, Marcus
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Freud, Clement
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)


Fry, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Royle, Sir Anthony


Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Tim


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' &amp; Amsh'm)
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
MacArthur, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
McCrindle, R. A.
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)


Goodhart, Philip
Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


Goodhew, Victor
MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


Goodlad, A.
McLaren, Martin
Sims, Roger


Gorst, John
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'm'ngton)


Gray, Hamish
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Grieve, Percy
Mather, Carol
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maude, Angus
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Grist, Ian
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sproat, Iain


Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stainton, Keith


Gurden, Harold
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hall, Sir John
Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT' bridge Wells)
Stanley, John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hannam, John
Mills, Peter
Stokes, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, John


Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Havers, Sir Michael
Money, Ernle
Tebbit, Norman


Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter



Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan, Geraint
Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Heseltine, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)
Townsend, C. D.


Higgins, Terence
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Trotter, Neville


Holland, Philip
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hooson, Emlyn
Mudd, David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)
Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Howell, David (Guildford)
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Waddington, David


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Nott, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Onslow, Cranley
Wakeham, John


Hunt, John
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hurd, Douglas
Osborn, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wall, Patrick


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pardoe, John
Walters, Dennis


James, David
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)
Warren, Kenneth


Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std &amp; W'fd)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Jessel, Toby
Percival, Ian
Wells, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wiggin, Jerry


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Winterton, Nicholas


Jopling, Michael
Prior, Rt. Hn. James
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Raison, Timothy
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Kaberry. Sir Donald
Rathbone, Tim
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rawllnson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Kershaw, Anthony
Redmond, Robert
Younger, Hn. George


Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.



King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't' gd' ns' re)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ronton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
Mr. David Steel and


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Paul Tyler.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bishop, E. S.
Cant, R. B.


Allaun, Frank
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Archer, Peter
Boardman, H.
Carter, Ray


Armstrong, Ernest
Booth, Albert
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Ashton, Joe
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Atkins, Ronalo
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Clemitson, Ivor


Atkinson, Norman
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Cocks, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom
Cohen, Stanley


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.


Bates, Alf
Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'ditch)
Conlan, Bernard


Baxter, William
Buchan, Norman
Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhiil)


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Crawshaw, Richard


Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, Ian
Cronin, John

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Janner, Greville
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Cryer, G. R.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prescott, John


Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)


Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Radice, Giles


Davidson, Arthur
John, Brynmor
Reid, George


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Judd, Frank
Roper, John


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dempsey, James
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Edward


Dormand, J. D.
Kinnock, Neil
Sandelson, Neville


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lambie, David
Sedgemore, Bryan


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamborn, Harry
Selby, Harry


Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P'ton)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Edelman, Maurice
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney &amp; P'plar)


Edge, Geoff
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Lee, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)


English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Sillars, James


Ennals, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Marcus
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Evans, John (Newton)
Loughlin, Charles
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)
Loyden, Eddie
Snape, Peter


Ewing, Mrs.Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spearing, Nigel


Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.



McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McGuire, Michael
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Flannery, Martin
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stott, Roger


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
McNamara, Kevin
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ford, Ben
Madden, M. O. F.
Swain, Thomas


Forrester, John
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Mahon, Simon
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tierney, Sydney


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marquand, David
Tomlinson, John


Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Tomney, Frank


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Meacher, Michael
Torney, Tom


George, Bruce
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mendelson, John
Urwin, T. W.


Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Golding, John
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Graham, Ted
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hamplon Itchen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, David


Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watt, Hamish


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Hamling, William
Moyle, Roland
White, James


Hardy, Peter
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Harper, Joseph
Murray, Ronald King
Whitlock, William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hatton, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge)


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Horam, John
Ovenden, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Owen, Dr. David
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Huckfield, Leslie
Padley, Walter
Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parry, Robert
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurie



Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I, EdgeHI)
Pendry, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Perry, Ernest G.
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Jackson, Colin
Phipps, Dr Colin
Mr. Thomas Cox.

The numbers being equal—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Following precedent, I cast my

vote with the Noes, to keep the Bill as it is.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 27, line 45, at end insert—
'(6A) Any reason by virtue of which a dismissal is to be regarded as unfair in consequence of sub-paragraph (4) or (6) above is hereafter in this Schedule referred to as an inadmissable reason'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the House is in session, crowded as the Chamber may be at the back, hon. Members should not stand this side of the Bar. Mr. Percival.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Percival: Amendment No. 89, in page 28, line 15, leave out
`the employer can satisfy the tribunal that'.
and Amendment No. 90, in
page 28, line 17, after `reasonably' insert `or unreasonably,
are amendments which we moved in Committee. They raise the not unimportant question of the onus of proof in proceedings for compensation for unfair dismissal. I stress the words "not unimportant question." Indeed, it is too important to be discussed in the atmosphere of the House at present and at this time of night. We can probably strike a note of agreement in all quarters of the House by saying that this matter would be better pursued in another place at another time and at a reasonable time of day. I say that because I want to make it clear that it is for that reason and no other that I propose not to move these amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendments not moved.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 31, line 7, leave out '12' and insert '26'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we may take the following:
Amendment No. 68, in page 31, line 12, at end insert
`but this paragraph shall have effect in a case where the effective date of termination falls within the period of six months beginning with the commencement of this Schedule as if the reference in sub-paragraph (a) to 26 weeks were a reference to 52 weeks'.
Amendment No. 105, in page 31, line 7, leave out '12' insert '52'.

Mr. Foot: These amendments deal with the important matter of the qualifying period under the unfair dismissal procedure. An important amendment was

carried by my hon. Friends in Committee. The Government cannot go quite so far as they wished, for technical reasons which I have explained to them, but we are moving fast in their direction, and I hope the amendment will be accepted on that basis.

Mr. Percival: There is a very small difference between Government Amendment No. 67 and our Amendment No. 105 on paper, but a very big difference in fact. What we are asking the Government to do in Amenment No. 105 is to go back to what they intended to do and what they were prevented from doing by the exercise by their own back bench Members in Committee.
The reason why I pursue the question is this. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State must have received representations not only from the CBI but from the construction industry. It seems that it is in the construction industry in particular that very real problems arise from the reduction of the qualifying period about which we are speaking. I think that it was probably for that reason in particular that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends decided in the first instance to do what we had proposed to do and, as a first step, reduce the period from 104 to 52 weeks. I think they must have been persuaded that once one gets below 52 weeks, about which we are all agreed, practical problems arise.
I hope this is non-controversial. I am paying the right hon. Gentleman the compliment of suggesting that his first idea was very practical. Now I am saying to him: yes, there was a muddle in the Committee. I am sure he did not want the result which occurred. We shall assist him to put it back to what was his considered first opinion. Is that not the right thing to do in the circumstances? If he was right in his first decision to make the period 52 weeks, is that decision not still right, and will he not accept the hand of friendship to enable him to do that what is right?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made his offer with the highest of motives, but I am equally sure that my hon. Friends moved their amendment in Committee with even higher motives. I must have regard to the fact that it was the occasion of the


biggest thumping majority in the whole of the Committee proceedings on the Bill. Whereas we had 20 ties on other matters, on this we had a roaring majority of, I think, three. I am sure that it would offend all those principles of freedom that we have heard so much about today if I were to show a lack of respect for a majority of three.
As I said at the time, I have the strongest sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. Friends, because what they were seeking to do by reducing the period was precisely to assist the freedom of individuals. That is what we are discussing—individuals who are wrongly dismissed. That is what we have been fighting for in this Bill. The amendment therefore provides a better cover for that than the original clause. However, we are faced with the difficulty that the tribunals are not fully manned to carry out the procedure, and that is the only reason we are not able to agree to the amendment proposed and carried by my hon. Friends in Committee being made in one step. We are, however, proposing to do it in two or three steps. I strongly urge the House to accept the views of my hon. Friends and move in their direction in the name of individual freedom by accepting the amendment.

Mr. Percival: It is surprising that the Secretary of State, who was so silent on the matter of conscience, finds himself so eloquent and passionate in support of something carried against him on a previous occasion.

Mr. James Sillars: My hon. Friends and I who were on the back benches in the Committee are reluctantly prepared to go along with the compromise contained in the amendment. Most of us would prefer the period of 13 weeks, but we will accept 26 weeks because of the difficulties.
I rise to put the record straight. There was no muddle in the Committee except on the Conservative side. When the Committee divided the Government Front Bench and the Government Whip voted against the amendment, and the Labour back benchers voted unanimously for it. One Conservative actually voted for the amendment, two voted against, and their Front Bench abstained. The House

should reject the claptrap we have heard form the Opposition tonight.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:

No. 68, in page 31, line 12, at end insert:
'but this paragraph shall have effect in a case where the effective date of termination falls within the period of six months beginning with the commencement of this Schedule as if the reference in sub-paragraph (a) to 26 weeks were a reference to 52 weeks'.—[Mr. Michael Foot.]

Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 106, in page 33, line 32, at end insert:
'(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect where, in any proceedings on a complaint under paragraph 14 of this Schedule, an industrial tribunal makes an award of compensation to be paid by an employer in consequence of action taken by the employer or by a person acting on his behalf, and the employer claims that the action so taken by him or on his behalf was induced by pressure exercised on him by another person (in this paragraph referred to as "the third party") by means of action to which the proceeding paragraph of this Schedule applies.
(2) In the circumstances specified in the preceding sub-paragraph, the employer may, in accordance with industrial tribunal regulations, require the third party to be joined as a party to the proceedings; and if in the proceedings the industrial tribunal finds that the claim of the employer (as specified in the above subparagraph) is well-founded, then, subject to sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph, the tribunal may, if it considers that it would be just and equitable to do so, make an order requiring the third party to pay to the employer a contribution in respect of the compensation awarded against him.
(3) The amount of the contribution ordered to be paid under this section in respect of any compensation—
(a) shall be such amount as the industrial tribunal considers to be just and equitable in the circumstances, and
(b) may, if the tribunal so determines, be such as to constitute a complete indemnity.
(4) Where the third party is an official of a trade union, and it is shown that in taking the action in question, he was acting in his capacity as such an official and within the scope of his authority on behalf of the trade union—
(a) the industrial tribunal shall not order him to pay any contribution to the employer under this paragraph but
(b) nothing in sub-paragraph 4(a) above shall affect the power of the tribunal to order a contribution to be paid by the trade union'.
The amendment assumes even more importance in view of the decision of the


House on Amendment No. 96. It is designed to ensure that where a union brings pressure to bear on an employer to dismiss a man, whether he be a member of the union or not, and the employer is then called upon to pay compensation, the employer should at least have the right to go to the tribunal and explain that he had to dismiss the man because of irresistible union pressure. Under the provisions about unfair dismissal that pressure has to be disregarded in deciding whether the dismissal is fair or unfair. He is therefore not permitted to explain that he dismissed the man because of union pressure. We believe that the employer should be able to have the union called before the tribunal, and, if the tribunal thinks the situation is inequitable, that it should direct that the union should contribute towards the dismissed man's compensation.
What could be fairer than that? I do not think that any of my right hon. and hon. Friends or Government right hon. and hon. Members would expect such provisions to be used very often. That is true of much of our law. Very few provisions of our law are used frequently but they are available to meet the case that calls for their use. They are not used in any other circumstances.
12 midnight
We have had some experience of this kind of provision. I think that it was the combined effect of Sections 5, 33 and 119 of the 1971 Act which produced the consequence that where a man was dismissed as a result of pressure brought by the union, and where the employer had to pay compensation because he could not show the pressure as a reason for dismissing the man, the employer could ask the tribunal to bring the union into the procedings and to consider making an order. In those circumstances the tribunal would not be obliged to make an order but it would be able to consider all the circumstances and to decide whether it would be right that the union which brought about the dismissal should make some contribution to wards the cost incurred by the employer.
In a few cases the procedures available to employers under the 1971 Act have been used. I know that the Minister will know of the case of Moppett. In that case the procedure to which I have referred was used and an order was made.
I suggest to the Government, and particularly to those right hon. and hon. Members who are rightly proud of being members of a great movement, that it would be very much more in keeping with the status of the movement if they were to say, "Yes, we shall accept the amendment". I believe that all unions and most unionists are as much concerned as we are to see that a man who loses his job in the circumstances which have been defined as unfair should receive compensation. Would it not be so much more to the credit of their great movement if they were to say, "Yes, we accept that if we bring about a man's dismissal his compensation should not fall entirely on the shoulders of the employer who was not to blame for dismissing the man. We are willing to accept our responsibility for meeting some of the compensation which we want to see go to the man in that position."
The question we ask in the amendment is whether it would be a fitting practice for such a great movement to take such an attitude towards compensation even at this late stage. We hope that the reasoning behind the amendment will find some support from the Government. We should very much like to hear why the Minister says that such a provision should not be accepted.

Mr. Booth: The hon. and learned Gentleman has, as ever, made very clear the intention of the amendment. He intends it to be read so that "third party" means trade union. He intends it to apply in such a way that if an employer dismisses an employee under union pressure the employer shall have the right to bring the trade union before the court and to say "I did it under union pressure". It is the hon. and learned Gentleman's intention that the tribunal shall decide whether the compensation order against the employer for unfair dismissal shall in part be the responsibility of the union concerned. The simple answer is that if a union were to bring pressure to bear upon an employer to dismiss an employee other than in circumstances in which the employee was in breach of the union membership agreement the union would be acting illegally and the employer would be acting wrongly to dismiss the employee.
The union has no right to press an employer in those circumstances. Therefore, it would not be proper to make such a provision in the Bill. Anyway, it is most unlikely that many employers would have recourse to it if it existed, because those employers who concede union membership agreements usually intend to abide by them, and in doing so will not be liable under the Bill for compensation for unfair dismissal; it will be fair to dismiss the employee who goes outwith the union membership agreement.
For that reason, I advise the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Percival: I rise—[interruption.] If hon. Members groan, the proceedings will only be prolonged.
I hope to make a constructive suggestion. I think the Minister is wrong. He is assuming that my point arises only in the union membership agreement situation. I was hoping that he would go on for another minute, both because we might have had a fuller explanation and because I might have been able to turn up the appropriate paragraph. Those who have taken a close interest in our proceedings will appreciate my difficulty; one cannot always find the appropriate paragraph in 30 seconds.
I think that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that where there is a union membership agreement the point will not arise. Therefore, perhaps I was wrong when I said that the amendment was all the more important because of what happened on Amendment No. 96. What the hon. Gentleman said supports what we said on Amendment No. 96. If there is a union membership agreement an unfortunate chap who is sacked will not receive compensation. Therefore, this question will not arise.

Mr. Booth: I concede the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. It is conceivable that there could be circumstances, other than those in which a union membership agreement existed, where a union might pressurise an employer to dismiss an employee, in which case it would not be unfair. But my response is that unions do not act in that way. They are properly concerned in the dis

missal of an employee only where the union membership agreement exists.

Mr. Percival: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It is always comforting to find that what one thought was probably right is right. But although what the Minister says is of assistance to me in some respects, it does not meet the point.
I think that the position is that an employer can never put forward the fact that pressure was brought to bear on him as an anwer to a claim for compensation for unfair dismissal. Therefore, otherwise than in a union membership agreement situation, an employer could be pressurised into dismissing someone whom he did not want to dismiss. That follows, because otherwise pressure would not be necessary. Therefore, he finds himself quite properly faced with a claim for compensation for unfair dismissal and is not allowed to say "I was pressurised into doing this." As a result, he has to pay compensation.
In those circumstances, why should not the union be prepared to act responsibly and pay its share of the compensation? Why should it not say, "We brought about the situation and we shall pay our whack of the compensation that we want the man to get"?
The fact that it is unlikely to happen is irrelevant. We know that it has happened. It has happened in the past three years, when similar provisions were in existence. In the case of Moppett a contribution was ordered.
Of course, it will not happen very often. We lawyers are constantly persuading people not to go to law but to find a solution by agreement. [Laughter.] I thought that that would wake the place up. That remark was meant not only as a pin to stick in hon. Gentlemen to waken them up; it also happens to be the truth. We are constantly saying to people. "For heaven's sake find a solution to this by agreement." However, there is the odd case where, for one reason or another, the parties cannot reach an agreement, and it is then essential to have a legal process for resolving their differences.
In the hope that the hon. Gentleman might have another think about this, and in the realisation that there is another place that can think about it


and that, with great respect to the House, this is neither the time nor the place to reach a decision on a matter of such great importance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 34, line 13, after 'be', insert `reinstated or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take the following amendments:
Amendment No. 31, in page 34, line 18, after 'so', insert 'reinstated,'.
Amendment No. 32, in page 35, line 35, after 'of', insert 'reinstatment'.
Amendment No. 35, in page 39, line 37, at end insert 'the reinstatement or'.
Amendment No. 36, in page 39, line 42, after 'such', insert 'reinstatement,'.

Mr. Clemitson: The effect of this series of amendments would be to present tribunals with a third option where a successful case of unfair dismissal is brought—that is, the option of recommending reinstatement—and to offer a similar option to conciliation officers.
The distinction between reinstatement and re-engagement is very important. Reinstatement means putting the person back in the same position he was in before dismissal in respect of seniority, continuity of employment, salary level, and so on. There may be difficulties in reinstating a person in his former job. Re-engagement, on the other hand, may mean no more than being engaged on an entirely new contract of employment, and the consequent loss of continuity of employment and seniority could result in serious financial loss to a person—much greater, incidentally, than many of the cash awards which industrial tribunals have awarded in cases of unfair dismissal.
These amendments are of the mildest possible kind; indeed, they are arguably too mild. Ideally, I should like to see a right of reinstatement established for innocent victims of unfair dismissal, always provided that the person concerned wishes it.
In Committee my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was concerned that tribunals should have a choice of

remedies. The effect of these amendments would be to widen the choice—to add reinstatement to the present options of re-engagement and compensation. My right hon. Friend was also concerned that reinstatement be seen as a first priority. I am afraid that the amendments do not go that far, but I hope that they will be seen as a useful interim improvement until a thorough improvement of the whole matter of unfair dismissal is made in the promised Employment Protection Bill.
My right hon. Friend also said in Committee that those of us who were putting forward the original amendments were pushing at a semi-open door. I trust that the door will now be opened a little wider to allow these modest amendments to squeeze through.

Mr. Booth: For the reasons enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) I believe that these amendments would make a worthwhile improvement to the unfair dismissals provisions of the Bill, and therefore I join with him in commending them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall deal with the other amendment in this group when we come to them.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 34, line 16, leave out 'a recommendation' and insert 'an order'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it may also be convenient for the House to consider the following amendments:
Amendment No. 41, in page 34, line 21, leave out 'a recommendation' and insert 'an order'.
Amendment No. 42, in page 34, line 23, leave out 'a recommendation' and insert 'an order'.
Amendment No. 43, in page 34, line 24, leave out 'recommendation' and insert 'order'.

Mr. Woodhouse: I hope that I shall have the same good fortune as the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson). This amendment rests on the principle that when a worker has been adjudged to have been unfairly dismissed he or she


should have an absolute, unqualified right to re-engagement, or reinstatement, in terms of Amendment No. 30.
12.15 a.m.
This amendment will help remedy an anomaly which was to be found in the 1971 Act and which is continued by Schedule 1, paragraph 18 of which reenacts Section 106 of the original Act, with certain amendments. It does not amend this anomaly by which a dismissed worker is denied the automatic right of re-engagement. It can only be embodied in the form of an order by the court, and not in the form of a recommendation.
It might be thought that the difference between an order and a recommendation is so small as to be negligible. This is not the case. If we examine the 1971 Act in detail we find that there are numerous points of a similar kind relating to unfair industrial practices in which the court has the power, or is required, to make an order rectifying the situation. This situation in Section 106 is the only one in which the term used is "recommendation" instead of "order". It is clear that there is a substantial difference between the two words and it is because of this that I wish to substitute the word "order" for the word "recommendation".
The case for this amendment in principle is self-evident. There is one other point I will add to commend it to the Minister. When the Industrial Relations Act was going through the House in 1971 I tabled an identical amendment to Clause 94 of the then Bill. It will be found on the Order Paper for 17th February 1971, of which I have a copy. The amendment had the support of a number of Labour Members including the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the hon. Members for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) and Derby, South (Mr. Johnson). This was the only amendment tabled to the then Bill to be supported by both Labour and Conservative Members. I hope that those right hon. and hon. Members can prevail upon the Government to accept this amendment.

Mr. John Page: May I ask my hon. Friend a question before

he sits down. My hon. Friend suggests that an order of compensation should be made if, for whatever reason, an order is not complied with under paragraph (3)(b). Would it be appropriate, or even possible, for the court to make an order and for it not to be complied with without that consituting contempt of court? If that is the case, it is not merely a small matter. It is surely a major matter of distinction in law. I would have thought that my hon. Friend is not taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut—he is using a bulldozer instead of a very small spade. Unless he can give me some—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member got up to ask a question before his hon. Friend sat down—ages ago. I think he has completed his question.

Mr. Woodhouse: My hon. Friend's question would be better addressed to the Minister. If he examines the other sections of the 1971 Act in which courts or tribunals are empowered to make orders he will find that exactly similar language is used.

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) put his finger on the difficulty. It does not matter whether one uses "order" or "recommendation" if the order cannot be enforced. The procedure if the recommendation is not observed is by way of aggravated compensation under a later provision of Schedule 1. The amendment does not provide a method of enforcing the suggested order apart from the existing provisions. It follows that what the tribunal directs is a recommendation and not an order. It would, therefore, be confusing and misleading to use "order".
So far in this country the courts have always taken the view that specific performance is not appropriate to the contract of service. It is difficult to supervise. There is only one other country which has a provision both for an order and for the specific performance of that order. That country is Italy, and I am advised that the procedure does not work very well. Only one other country in the Western world has provision for the specific performance of an order for reinstatement, and that is the United States. Again, that procedure has been found not to work very well for trade union officials.
We should recognise the reality and keep "recommendation", because no enforcement procedure is available. I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Woodhouse: I do not find that reply satisfactory. I doubt whether the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who supported my amendment in 1971, would have found that answer satisfactory had the amendment not fallen under the guillotine.
I see no reason why, out of all the passages of the 1971 Act in which provision was made for an order to be made by a court or tribunal, in this context alone the feebler measure of a recommendation should be substituted for an order. I am, therefore, not willing to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 34, line 18, after 'so', insert 'reinstated,'.

No. 32, in page 35, line 35, after 'of', insert 'reinstatement'.—[Mr. Clemitson.]

Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 107, in page 36 leave out lines 12 to 14.
It is interesting to notice how many more hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are on the Government benches than there were yesterday. It would be discourteous of me to suggest that their purpose is to be on the spot so that they may make a bolt for home as soon as the traps are open. I can only assume that the reason for their presence—

Mr. James Sillars: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the next plane or train for us is at 8 o'clock?

Mr. Percival: I take it that the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's intervention is to make me feel under no obligation to hurry. I was doing those present the courtesy of suggesting that they are here because they are interested in the amendments which, though they come late, are none the less important.
The amendment deals with the maximum amount of compensation. What surprises me is that Labour Members should object to an amendment which seeks to remove an arbitrary limit on compensation and thus enable some persons, who are at present under the Bill

limited to £5,000, to obtain the same measure of compensation as others whose 104 weeks 'wages would be less than the monetary total allowed. There is no great logic in saying "104 weeks or a maximum", since that would be significant only if the maximum were less than 104 weeks. It must produce the result that whereas some people will get up to 104 weeks as the measure of their compensation, others will get less. What is the sense in that? What is the logic in fixing the limit at £5,200 or any other sum? Why should there not be the same measure for everybody? Is that not more in line with the equalitarian principles so often propounded by Labour Members?
Who is it that the Government are seeking to protect in these provisions by limiting the sum to £5,200? I beg to doubt that it is the employer. Do they have a rooted objection to anybody earning more than £2,600 a year, and do they take the view that anybody who earns more than that sum should have a smaller measure of compensation? If so, I wonder what the miners think about it. It is no very great sum in this day and age.
We find it difficult to understand why there should be any resistance to the amendment. It would do no more than justice to many people who, although their incomes are by no means exorbitant, would be limited by the provisions as they stand to receiving a lesser measure of compensation than others simply because they happen to be earning a little more. I invite the Minister to say what possible purpose there can be for preserving what has now become an antiquated and wholly illogical series of provisions.

Mr. Booth: The effect of the amendment would be to remove the upper limit of £5,200 on the compensation which an industrial tribunal can award for unfair dismissal. It was pointed out that this could benefit only those with a salary in excess of £2,600 a year since the Bill also contains a two-year salary limit on the maximum compensation that can be paid. In practice in the vast majority of cases tribunals have awarded compensation less than the maximum provided by the 1971 Act. The provision of this compensation is more important to the lower paid and unorganised than it is to the highly paid and highly organised since they may have


available to them other means of protection and redress. Half of the male applicants for unfair dismissal compensation in 1973 were people who earned less than £30 a week. There have been only ten out of the 1,428 awards up to the end of 1973 in which more than £4,000 has been awarded. Tribunals of this sort are possibly not the most suitable bodies for dealing with unlimited sums of compensation, up to the limit of two years of the highest salaries.
I accept the criticism that the sum we have proposed is an arbitrary figure. We are exchanging the arbitrary lower figure of the 1971 Act for an arbitrary higher figure and it is only to that extent that I can commend it as an improvement. However, there is provision in this Clause for the limit to be changed by order. I suggest that we should consider under those powers the proper time for an increase, and I ask the House to reject the amendment.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Percival: The Minister has at least conceded that there is something to be considered here by suggesting that there will be power by order to vary the figure. He is wide of the mark in two respects. It is good that in the vast majority of cases sums are awarded far below the maximum, because the compensation is the measure of what someone has lost. Assuming the tribunals have done their job properly—there is no reason to suggest that they have not, and there is an appellate court if they ever failed to do so—what people have lost is far less than the limit of what could have been awarded. It is far better to lose something to than lose it and not be compensated. This means that people have got other employment fairly quickly, and that is good.
I wish that the House would sometimes do what the lawyers do. We are willing to learn from others. Ours is a practical profession, when we deal with a case, often on behalf of a union, what we want to know are the facts. The law is a longstop. We hope that it will not be necessary for people to use it, but it should be there and it should be adequate to meet the case when it arises, however unlikely such a case may be. Cases may be more likely if this new provision remains unaltered. The day may be getting

nearer when the losses suffered are greater and therefore compensation will be higher. It is illogical that because someone is earning £2,600—that is not a sin at the present rate of wages—he should be limited to twice £2,600, whereas someone earning less would get proportionately more.
However, the Minister has offered something of an olive branch and suggested that there is something here which requires further thought. With even that little chink, rather than force the House to take a decision, it is better to take the course which leaves room for that further consideration. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 37, line 41, leave out 'six ' and insert 'three'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 34.

Mr. Percival: I shall not be seeking leave to withdraw this amendment—I have good reason to believe that that will not be necessary. Because of the courtesy which has been extended to me by Ministers throughout the passage of the Bill—including over the past few days—I have reason to be optimistic about the outcome of my speech.
We are ready enough to criticise when we believe that criticism is justified. The Minister of State will not complain about that. By the same token, we should show our appreciation when it is due. We are glad that the amendment is to be accepted because we think that in practice it makes a lot of difference. All the way through this legislation—including our own legislation—we have accepted that in practice a heavy burden would fall upon the employer. If that were not so, it would detract greatly from the remedy we sought to provide in the unfair dismissal provisions. We have said that there must be a balance in this as in everything else, and we should not make it too heavy a burden for those who are to pay.
The six months limit would in many cases have presented a real practical problem. The situation is not on all fours with the situation in redundancy cases. In the case of unfair dismissals the retention of the six months limit would have presented a real problem. We are glad


that the Government are to accept the reduction of the period from six months to three months.

Mr. Booth: The combined effect of the two amendments would be to reduce the time limit for presenting a complaint of unfair dismissal from six months to three and to enable tribunals to hear complaints within a reasonable time thereafter where they are satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented within the three months limit. The two amendments combined have this effect, which will be beneficial.
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the way he has presented the matter. This is an amicable note on which he and I address the House for the last time on Report on the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 37, line 42, at end insert:
'or within such further period as the tribunal consider reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented within the period of three months'.—[Mr. Booth.]

No. 35, in page 39, line 37, at end insert 'the reinstatement or'.

No. 36, in page 39, line 42, after 'such' insert 'reinstatement'.—[Mr. Clemitson.]

Schedule 3

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 59, line 21, at end insert—

'The Insurance Companies Act (Northern
Ireland) 1968 (c. 6) N.I.)

13.—(1) The Insurance Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 shall be amended in

1968 c. 6 (N.I.)
The Insurance Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1968.
 In s ection 1(2)(a), the words "or" trade unions".




In section 3(1)(c), the words "or" trade unions".

No. 69, in page 61, line 14, column 3, at end add:

'In Schedule 3, paragraph 31.'—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Bill read the Third time and passed.

RENT [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Rent Act 1968 and the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 it is expedient to authorise any increase atributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums

accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph:—

(2) In section 1(2(a) omit the words "or trade unions".

(3) In section 1(2) after paragraph (c) insert—"or
(d) any insurance company which is, or is deemed to be, registered under the Acts relating to trade unions, or to any insurance company which is a Great Britain union if in either case the insurance business is limited to the provision for its members of provident benefits or strike benefits.".

(4) In section 3(1)(c) omit the words "or trade unions".

(5) In section 3(1) after paragraph (d) insert—
(e) a body which is, or is deemed to be, registered under the Acts relating to trade unions, or is a Great Britain union and in either case limits its insurance business to the provision for its members of provident benefits or strike benefits.".

(6) In section 72(1) at the appropriate place in alphabetical order insert—
"Great Britain union" means a trade union or employers' association within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, being either—
(a) a union whose name is for the time being entered in the list of trade unions or of employers' association under section 4 of that Act; or
(b) a union or association whose name is not so entered, but whose principal office is situated in England, Wales or Scotland".—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Schedule 5

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 60, line 50, at end insert—

payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If there is no objection, I will put as a single question the motions on the six Statutory Instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments):

TAXES

That the Regional Employment Premium (Continuation of Payment) (Winsford) (Amendment) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.

OVERSEAS AID

That the International Development Associaciation (Fourth Replenishment: Interim Payments) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.

OVERSEAS AID

That the International Development Association (Fourth Replenishment) Order, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

That the Scottish Special Housing Association (Limit of Advances) (Scotland) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.

AGRICULTURE

That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES

That the National Radiological Protection Board (Extension of Functions) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Golding.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.